Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT

For Thurrock, in the room of Captain Hugh James Delargy, deceased.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS (WHITE PAPER)

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about occupational pension schemes.
Last year the Occupational Pensions Board reported to my right hon. Friend's predecessor on a number of questions she referred to it, including disclosure of information and member participation in occupational pension schemes.
The Board's report was made in February 1975. The Government have now carefully considered the report and have decided that the majority of the board's recommendations should be accepted. In particular, the Government have decided that there is an overwhelming case for a statutory provision which will require the full disclosure of information about schemes to scheme members. The Government also intend to extend this right to the independent recognised trade unions concerned.
The Government accept the board's views about the benefits to be gained from members taking a responsible role in the management of their schemes. Occupational pensions can be regarded as deferred pay, and it is therefore right that members should have a say in the running of their scheme. But the Government doubt whether satisfactory progress could be made by means of voluntary "code of good practice" as suggested by the board. Accordingly, the Government propose to provide by legislation for 50 per cent. member participation in the management

of occupational pension schemes through the agency of independent recognised trade unions.
My right hon. Friend published yesterday a White Paper, Cmnd. 6514, containing the Government's proposals, which will prepare the way for a public discussion of the issues involved. The Government will continue their usual practice of consulting the TUC, the CBI and the main pensions organisations before bringing forward their proposals for legislation. Any views expressed by other bodies with an interest in this field would, of course, also be taken carefully into account.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister of State for making this statement in the House. However, it is a little sad that it has to be made away from the tumult and shouting of yesterday and when most of the captains and kings have departed to their constituencies, because they are a very important White Paper and statement.
Do the Government recognise that, while we welcome the growing trade union interest in occupational pension schemes, the White Paper gives the trade unions as such a wholly unjustified measure of control over occupational pension schemes? Does the Minister recognise that this represents a further whittling away of the rights of employees—for instance, of middle management and others—who do not belong and do not wish to belong to trade unions?
Is the Minister aware that, coming after the very successful efforts to achieve bipartisan agreement on the future role of occupational pension schemes within the framework of overall pension policy, a role in which a notable part was played by the Minister's predecessor, the late Brian O'Malley, the White Paper now threatens to chuck the whole issue back into the arena of party politics?
I have three specific questions to put to the Minister. First, do the Government recognise the essential distinction between scheme members who are entitled to a say—indeed, a bigger say—in how their schemes are run, on the one hand, and, on the other, trade unions which may represent only a minority of the members of any particular scheme?
Secondly, how do the Government propose that scheme members who are not trade union members should be represented? Will they have to be in addition to the 50 per cent. trade union representation, or will their representatives form part of it, even though they may not be trade union members?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that he will include in the Bill a provision that, if the members of a pension scheme so wish, they may elect their own representatives to sit on the management body rather than having them appointed by trade unions?

Mr. Orme: I am rather surprised at the churlish attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that the whole House would recognise that this was a positive step in industrial democracy, giving workers a 50 per cent. right only in the management of their own schemes, bearing in mind that this is, of course, deferred pay.
I come to the right hon. Gentleman's specific questions about trade union representation. The Government have considered this matter very fully. They have considered the increasing trade union representation which is now found throughout middle management, not just in middle management. These schemes apply throughout the whole of industry. The point should be made that we are talking about independent trade unions which are recognised by the Employment Protection Act but which need not necessarily be affiliated to the TUC.
In regard to the management of schemes, the Government are of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of people in occupational schemes are members of independent trade unions. Therefore, we feel that the right lines along which these schemes should be developed is through organised and collective bargaining and through the independent trade unions.
Let me emphasise in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question about participation and how schemes will be managed where there may be trade union and non-trade union membership that the statutory right for negotiation will be with the independent trade unions,

but it will be a matter for the companies and firms concerned how these schemes develop. However, the Government make two central points in their proposals in the White Paper. The first is that it should be 50–50 representation, and the second is that it should be through the independent trade unions.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept that we on the Liberal Bench welcome the board's desire to increase the areas of the disclosure of information and that we shall be taking part in the public debate? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Government's proposals to increase the possibilities of participation, I think we deserve an explanation of why only TUC-affiliated unions are to be involved.

Mr. Ron Thomas: My right hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Freud: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously I misunderstood him.
As the Government say that they will be affected by public debate, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this is a White Paper and not a Green Paper?

Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome of the White Paper. Naturally, he and his party and others will want to discuss the details. In paragraph 71 of the White Paper—and it is repeated many times throughout the White Paper—we say that we want consultation. The hon. Gentleman asked me why it was a White Paper and not a Green Paper. We have based it on the Occupational Pensions Board's report. We have gone into this in great detail. We feel that we want to get ahead with legislation, though we say again in the White Paper that we shall give two years' notice before the proposals come into operation. We feel that there is room within the terms of the White Paper for negotiation.
Finally, let me again correct the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). We refer to independent trade unions, which, of course, can be outside the TUC.

Mr. Ron. Thomas: May I say how much I welcome this White Paper, especially its references to the disclosure of information and participation in these pension schemes by the working people


concerned because, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, this is a matter of deferred income?
I want to put two questions to my right hon. Friend. Is not it essential that the representatives come from independent trade unions since, under the Employment Protection Act, only then can we be clear that they are independent of the employer? I do not see how anyone can look at a pension scheme unless he is independent of the employer.
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the training of these representatives, which is also mentioned in the White Paper? That is very important.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome of the White Paper The answer to his first question is a very firm "Yes".
Training is one of the aspects which the Government want to examine. These are areas in which we need a great deal of consultation. I shall want to discuss this freely with the pensions interests and with others involved. Certainly we have no preconceived ideas, but obviously training will be necessary.

Mr. Paul Dean: I give a warm welcome to the general aim of the White Paper—namely, that there should be more information available to occupational scheme members and that there should be greater participation on the part of members in the management of their schemes. There will be general agreement in the House about that aim, and I hope that there will be constructive discussions of the proposals.
However, I put two notes of reservation to the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he at least keep an open mind about whether it is wise to proceed by legislation as opposed to a code of practice? In proposing to proceed by legislation, is he aware that he is acting contrary to the advice of the Occupational Pensions Board? Might it not be better, more flexible and easier to achieve the general aim to proceed by a code of practice?
The second point concerns that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, unless he proceeds very carefully in

his consideration of who should provide representation of members of a scheme, he runs the risk of the bipartisan approach to pensions being undermined? Does he recognise that all members of schemes at all levels in those schemes must be allowed effectively to participate and that, if there is any suspicion of political control coming into the investment of these very large sums rather than the interests of the members of those schemes, it will do grave damage to the future development of occupational pension schemes?

Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome of the White Paper and of course I note his two reservations.
Of course the Government considered whether to proceed by means of a code of practice as opposed to legislation. These are very complicated matters involving a multiplicity of schemes and different approaches. Therefore, the Government felt that a legal framework was essential to bring these schemes together and to take them, in effect, out of the area of criticism.
We shall now be moving into an area where there will be the possibility of contracting out of the better pensions scheme that comes in in 1978. There is a great deal of work to be done, and the members of schemes will want to feel that their schemes are safe and that their investments are sound.
That brings me to the hon. Gentleman's second point. It should be recognised—I think most people do recognise—that people in industry, whether in management, on the shop floor or in offices, are becoming increasingly concerned about pensions. They want a higher standard of living when they retire, and they are living longer. There are crucial factors which have entered into the bargaining sector of the trade union movement. People want to protect their interests, and we feel that their interests can best be protected on a collective basis and that the trade unions, acting independently and freely, are best equipped to do this.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this step will be widely welcomed by all workers in the Labour movement generally as an


important step towards industrial democracy, to which I presume everyone in the House wants to progress? I presume that there will be a debate in the House on these matters at an early date—I hope that it will take place before the Summer Recess, or certainly early in the new Session—but is it the Government's intention to introduce legislation in the next Session? The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said that this was a wholly unjustified increase in the power of the trade unions, but what precisely is the present trade union representation in occupational schemes?

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for his overall welcome. It is my intention to start consultations immediately, first with the TUC and CBI and then with the pension interests. I hope that the consultations will take place during July. I then hope to be in a position to produce a Bill. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, but I hope that we can introduce the Bill next Session. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the timetable of the House. If it is introduced next Session, we shall still have to give two years' notice of the implementation of the scheme. There is a great deal of work to be done, and the quicker we can get on with the Bill, the better.
I think that my hon. Friend's second question was about the power of the trade unions.

Mr. William Hamilton: Yes, and what representation they have now.

Mr. Orme: It is a very interesting question. Opposition Members laugh, but I do not see anything funny in it. Many schemes include trade union representation. The National Union of Mineworkers has a scheme that runs in line with that of the National Union of Railwaymen. Many schemes have such representation, and they will increasingly have it. We are not starting on virgin soil but building on the good things that already exist.

Mr. Fry: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that many people will contrast the Government's refusal to accept the advice of the board—namely, to make these moves voluntarily—with

their attitude to the trade unions regarding incomes policy? If such an important step as the incomes policy can be taken on a voluntary basis, why not in this case? Will not this be seen as yet another Government submission to its paymasters in the trade unions?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the trade union movement must be pretty small. The trade unions act as independent bodies. They act independently of one another. A great deal of discussion will be needed. The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) referred to the voluntary approach. Naturally, we examined that, but we feel that there is a need for a framework as we are dealing with deferred pay. We feel that the standards must be increased.
I take this opportunity to refer to a statement that appears in this morning's Daily Mail. That sort of scaremongering does no service to pension schemes. In fact, we are doing the exact opposite of what the Daily Mail talks about. We are trying to give long-term democratic control over the investment of members' money. As the hon. Gentleman knows, pensions and fringe benefits are now an integral part of collective bargaining and are becoming more important.

Mr. Park: I add my welcome to these proposals. In deciding that representation will be on a 50–50 basis, I think that the Government are taking an essentially practical approach to this development. It is inevitable that we should hear the cry from the Opposition Benches "What about the non-unionists?" If Opposition Members care to examine that cry just for once, they might modify it on this and on future occasions.
Wage bargaining, for example, is done in essence by the trade unions. Management, even if willing to do so, are not able to negotiate individually with each person in their employ, except in very small businesses. However, in this instance we are talking about the membership of a body of trustees that in a given factory may number only 10 or a dozen, or fewer. In choosing to have independent trade unions come forward with representatives, the Government are facing the fact that the representatives will be responsible to the members. They will be required to report back to the


members on their conduct on the trustee board.
If we turn to the non-unionists—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it will be in order if he comes to the point of his question.

Mr. Park: The point is that representatives of trade unions are responsible to the members. Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that non-unionists are responsible only to themselves. To whom are they accountable except to themselves? How would they reflect the opinion of other trade unionists? They cannot all be on the trustee board.

Mr. Orme: I think that my hon. Friend is anticipating a Second Reading debate. However, his two central points are very important. When we talk about 50–50 representation, we also mean management representation of 50 per cent. I am convinced that employees, through their trade unions and managements, will want only the best operation of their scheme. In many instances in the past there has been far too much secrecy.
In the white-collar sector, as it is called, and in the managerial sector many unions can now show a 1,000 per cent. increase in membership over the past year. Membership is increasing. I think that those members will want their trade unions to play a positive part in the schemes.

Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is right when he says that we are talking about workers' deferred wages? Does he appreciate that

that makes it all the more important that the funds are invested commercially and not for idealistic or political motives? That is why it is better to give a 50 per cent. share of control to the workers themselves rather than to the trade unionists, who are not responsible for what happens to the money they lose that belongs to others.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman has a misconception—

Mr. Ridley: No, the right hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. Orme: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a misconception. It will be left to the individual companies to decide how they implement the scheme. One cannot envisage trade unionists wanting the company in which they work to lose money which is their own money. They will want to see funds invested in the best possible manner. It has been shown repeatedly in recent years that work people, whether by hand or by brain, are often far more concerned about the firm they work for than are some of the shareholders and management.

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the participation that is outlined in the White Paper, but how does the right hon. Gentleman envisage paragraph 33 of the White Paper applying in companies where the works council rather than a trade union is the main negotiator?

Mr. Orme: In the negotiations we shall discover how matters develop as regards councils and works committees. However, the legal right for participation within those companies will be given to the independent trade unions.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is widespread feeling on the Opposition side of the House that to take this legislation, which affects the interests of many millions of people in this country, on a Friday is a very bad piece of management on the part of the Government. At this stage, I should like to protest that the Motion on the Order Paper indicating that the rule is to be suspended at 4 o'clock will mean that the Third Reading will take place at a time when many Members of Parliament will of necessity be away in the country in their constituencies and will not, therefore, be able to give their views on this very important matter. I should have thought that the Government could have found some opportunity to have at least the Third Reading debate at a time more suitable to Members of the House, which would thus be able to give its decision on a matter which will affect millions of our fellow countrymen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Gentleman will fully understand that that is not a matter of order.
The first amendment selected is Government New Clause 1, with which it is proposed to take Amendments (a) and (b).

Mr. Mark Carlisle: rose—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr. Carlisle—on a point of order.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for interrupting matters, but although I appreciate the effect of what you have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), is it not possible that the Minister could respond by saying whether it is the intention of the Government to carry on to Third Reading today or whether, if we do not reach the end of the Report stage at a reasonable time, he would agree that this is the sort of Bill on which the

House ought to be allowed to express a clear opinion with a reasonably sized vote?

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield): Before—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I might answer the point of order raised by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). Hon. Members have the opportunity at 4 o'clock to express their views on this point.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the motion at 4 o'clock debatable? I was under the impression that it could not be debated and would have to be merely voted on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It cannot be debated, but it can be voted upon.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were giving the impression that we could express our opinions on it at 4 o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The opinion of the House can be taken in the more forceful manner if so desired.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Before the Minister replies to my hon. Friend's point of order—which seems a slightly odd thing to happen—will he also address his mind to the question of the vote on the Government's amendment to reverse the decision reached in Committee, which I venture to suggest should also be taken at a time when hon. Members can be present?

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): I am not quite sure whether I am replying to a point of order or moving the Second Reading of New Clause 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is for the discretion of the Minister. I have called New Clause 1 and Amendments (a) and (b), but if the Minister desires to make any comment on the point of order, he may certainly do so.

Dr. Gilbert: I think that it may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to do so by way of opening remarks on New Clause 1, which is what I intended to do anyway.

New Clause 1

FIRST REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 33A TO BE LAID IN DRAFT AND APPROVED BY PARLIAMENT.

'Subsection (3) of section 199 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (statutory instruments containing regulations under that Act to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) shall not apply to the statutory instrument containing the first regulations made under section 33A of that Act and the Secretary of State shall not make those first regulations unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Dr. Gilbert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Gilbert: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are to take Amendment (a), leave out first "first"; and Amendment (b), leave out second "first".

Dr. Gilbert: I have no greater enthusiasm for debating these matters on a Friday than that of Opposition Members, but there are certain exigencies with which we are all faced, as I am sure they will appreciate. It is certainly not the Government's intention to try to pursue debate on this matter late into this evening, and I am sure that we shall reach an amicable understanding when we see how we progress. We are, after all, faced with only six groups of amendments for debate. We had a whole day on Second Reading and 15 hours in Standing Committee. The general principle behind the Bill was emphatically endorsed by the House in a free vote not so very long ago.
The effect of the new clause is to fulfil a pledge that I gave in Standing Committee that the initial set of regulations under the Bill when it is enacted will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I recognise straight away that hon. Members face some difficulty in handling this legislation, because once the general principle has been endorsed in the Bill, the substance of the legislation will be in the form of regulations which are not yet before the House to be debated.
I have done my very best to be helpful to hon. Members with respect to information, consultation and guarantee of de

bate. Concerning information, I have circulated to members of the Standing Committee, and have also made available in the Vote Office and the Library, a draft of the consultation document which I intend to send to interested organisations as and when the Bill is passed, and a note on the exemptions which have been given in the other countries which have introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts.
Concerning consultation, I would welcome, in addition to whatever is said in this debate, any representations that hon. Members may wish to make to me, and representations from the general public in addition to those I am soliciting from interested bodies.
Concerning a guarantee of debate, this new clause effectively fulfils the commitment that I gave in Committee. Even this commitment that I am fulfilling is not without cost, because there will be a period, necessarily, between the time that the draft regulations are available and when time is found to be available for the debate on those regulations, in which lives will be lost and serious injuries will befall members of the public because of the delay which may be necessary due to the exigencies of the parliamentary timetable. It is only right that I should counsel hon. Members about the difficulty that is inevitable in the procedure that they would wish me to follow.

Mr. Roger Moate: Is the Minister suggesting that had we maintained the negative procedure there would not have been a similar delay while in anticipation of a debate on this matter?

Dr. Gilbert: It would remain to be seen under the negative procedure whether time would have been found for a debate and whether hon. Members would have wanted time for debate, bearing in mind all the previous amount of debate which would have been given to this matter. However, that is a matter of speculation.

Mr. Toby Jessel: If, as I believe, the Government are concerned about loss of life due to time being lost between the various stages of the Bill and its enactment, why was there more than two months' delay between Second Reading and the Committee stage and a


month's delay between the Committee stage and the Report stage?

Dr. Gilbert: I deplore all delays in the passage of this Bill. I am as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman to get an effective Bill on the statute book at as early a date as possible. All I am saying—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not quarrel with the proposition—is that any additional delay will involve a cost to the general public in terms of casualties. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been as anxious as I am to keep that delay to a minimum.
I turn to the two amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I should like to say how much I regret his inability to be here today. I gather that he is indisposed. I hope that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will convey our best wishes to him for a speedy recovery. I know how intensely interested he
is in these matters and appreciate the contribution that he made in Standing Committee.
The effects of the amendments proposed to the new clause is to extend the requirement for the use of the affirmative procedure to all subsequent regulations to be made under this legislation. I said in Committee that I was reluctant to accept that proposition when we debated it in Committee. I have considered the matter further. I am afraid that I am still not of a view that I could recommend that procedure to the House. Perhaps I may set out the circumstances in which I foresee that there might be a need for further regulations. It may help the House in coming to a view on the matter.
I imagine that the main reason why hon. Members were pressing for this extension of the affirmative procedure is that they might have in mind a situation in which there will be an extension of the compulsory use of belts, say, to the back seats of cars, after a period of compulsory fitting being required. I must say that I do not think it is necessarily automatically the case that when the majority of a vehicle fleet, for instance, is equipped with belts when it is not at present required to be equipped with belts, compulsory wearing would be automatically extended. That would be a

decision for whoever was the Minister for Transport of the day. For example, I should think it unlikely that compulsory fitting would ever be extended to everybody who travelled on a stage carriage bus.
But if there came a time when it seemed appropriate to recommend an extension of this legislation I should think it would be easier for the House to take that decision than it will for it to take a decision on the matter that we are debating now, because a decision in principle will have been taken. I do not foresee that time coming for quite a considerable period, if at all, but if it does come we shall by then have had a lot more experience of the enforcement of the legislation, and more experience of the operation of the exemptions and the questions that would arise would be fairly simple ones of practicality rather than principle. I should have thought that the negative procedure would have been a safeguard to the House.
Another set of circumstances that I envisage is that there might be technical developments in the use of belts or restraint mechanism that would make it possible for people less than 5 ft. tall to wear them without discomfort or inconvenience, and it might be appropriate to remove that type of exemption. I am merely speculating. I assure hon. Members that I have nothing specific in mind. I know of no immediate developments that would bring about such a situation, but I am guarding against theoretical possibilities.
Finally, it is conceivable that we—by that I mean Ministers and the Department—and the House in its scrutiny of the regulations will find that by an oversight we have failed to realise that certain classes of individual deserve exemption but do not have it under the regulations. Those classes might come to light only after a period of experience of the operation of the legislation. Therefore, if there were that genuine need for exemption it would be a matter of some urgency to try to see that that need was catered for. I imagine that it could only be a small class of people, because most of these matters have been aired in this country and abroad, but still I do not exclude the possibility of that. I should be the last to claim that Governments


have a monopoly of wisdom in these matters or that they have a divine infallibility when it comes to drafting legislation.
While in circumstances of that sort the police would no doubt wish to deal sympathetically with those who would be in breach of the law, I feel sure the House would agree that it would be desirable to give relief as quickly as possible. If we were bound by the proposed amendments to the new clause the individuals affected would suffer until time could be found for debate, particularly if it was a controversial matter, and I think that that again is something that the House would not lightly wish to see happen.
With those few words I commend the new clause to the House, but I have to advise my hon. Friends that, as things stand, I could not encourage them to endorse the amendments.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Fry: I very much appreciate the kind remarks of the Minister about my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), and I shall pass them on to him. It is a matter of considerable sorrow to us on this side of the House that my hon. Friend is not here. We understand that there is a certain amount of sorrow on both sides of the House today, but particularly on the other side following last night's by-election result at Rotherham.
In no way do we underestimate the size of the Minister's concession in the new clause. As we said in Committee, we welcome it and regard it as a genuine attempt to go quite a long way towards meeting our point of view, but I must stress that many Opposition Members regard this as one of the most important matters in this legislation. We feel that as things stand far too much has been delegated to the Minister's authority, and we have grave doubts about how future regulations will be brought forward.
One of the points that the Minister made this morning about delay rang a little hollow, bearing in mind how long we have been waiting for his consultative letter and document. For example, I had to ring the Minister's office yesterday afternoon to ask when we were to get the draft consultative letter. I was informed that a letter would be coming through to

me personally yesterday afternoon, but I received it in the post this morning, and had I not asked at the Vote Office whether copies were available I should not have seen a copy of the document before.
Some of my hon. Friends have already said this morning that there has been considerabe delay in dealing with the Bill. There was delay in holding the Committee stage. The draft notes were not sent to Members of the Committee until 6th May and, as I said a moment ago, the draft consultative letter was sent out only yesterday. If the regulations when they come forward are to be the result of meaningful consultations with all the parties involved, the Minister must not accuse others of dragging their feet, because his Department has already done that to a certain extent. We have gone over the argument about the date of the original Second Reading debate in the last Session of Parliament. I do not intend to go into that again, but I think that what I have said answers the point that the Minister was trying to make this morning.
Another reason why we are unhappy about the proposed new clause is that even if our amendments were accepted the whole thing could still be subject to the statutory instrument procedure, and any regulations brought forward could not be amended but would have to be accepted or negatived as they stood. There should be a reasonable debate on the matters involved. We made this point several times in Committee, mainly because we feel strongly that one of the main problems with this legislation is the need to obtain the maximum popular acceptance of it if the Government are to get anything like the wearing level of seat belts for which they hope in order to save lives.
Very often, debates held under the negative procedure are restricted. For example, on 10th December last the important issue of the speed limits currently in force was debated for a mere 12 minutes. We maintain that there could be considerable extensions to the operation of the Bill that would justify much longer debates than that. Furthermore, the subject could well justify a debate at a reasonable hour, and too often, even if a Prayer is accepted, the


temptation is to put the debate on in the early hours of the morning, which of necessity means that it does not receive the kind of attention that is given to debates held at other times.
Fears that there will be a constant stream of legislation and great difficulty in fitting such debates into the parliamentary programme are unjustified, because to a large extent future amendments are in the hands of the Minister and his Department. If they do their job properly in having consultations, if they go into all the exemptions thoroughly, and if they allow the House to debate the exemptions and decide upon them, the need for future changes or additions will be very small.
We therefore come back to another fundamental point about the Bill, which is that because of the way in which it is framed it is inevitable that many people will be worried about the introduction of regulations which they have not seen and which might be extended without being subject to the kind of parliamentary control that many of us would like. Therefore, if we proceeded by the affirmative resolution procedure there would be of necessity some delay, but much of the need for future debates could be obviated by the Government.
Although we all agree there should be no substitution of consultation for parliamentary debate, if the Minister had been able to come to the House—and he need not have brought the Report stage before the House today—after he had had consultations with the interested parties, we would all have been much happier. I had a letter from the RAC only yesterday morning. It was under the impression that it would be consulted if the Minister restored the penalty to a £50 limit. It was rather surprised that it had not been consulted. I do not think there is the necessary confidence in the consultation procedure, which is essential if we are to get acceptance of this Bill.
The Minister went on to talk about the possible reasons why there should be extensions of the regulations. I would like to refer the Minister to the discussions we had in Standing Committee on this point. It was obvious from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, in reply to questions I asked him, that the effect

is contained in the Construction and Use of this Bill depends very much on what Regulations. Regulation 17 outlines the circumstances in which it is compulsory to fit a seat belt.
The relevant point about these regulations is that their extension is subject to the negative procedure, and therefore any major changes to the Construction and Use Regulations would not, of necessity, be debated in the House. This is not just a question of whether seat belts are to be fitted to rear seats of cars. It could be decided that seat belts should be fitted to all seats on coaches. There are a number of wide-ranging opinions about that. Many members of the travelling public, as well as the coach operators, would like to be consulted on this point. I suggest to the Minister that it would be a major move forward if, in these circumstances, the House were entitled to a broad debate and the matter were not just subject to the negative procedure.
If the Minister is saying that he still has an open mind on such extensions to the regulations, I would answer that this is not good enough. The fact that he feels that the matter could be settled reasonably is not sufficient, when we are considering a detailed piece of legislation. The Minister must be much more explicit. If he were prepared to say that he accepted the dependence of this Bill on Construction and Use Regulation 17, and that any extension of these regulations which would bring about a change in the Bill itself would be introduced subject to the affirmative procedure, then we would be much more in agreement with him. I do not honestly think that as the matter stands I could possibly advise my hon. Friends not to divide the House on the two amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We believe that this Bill is very far-reaching and we feel very strongly about the necessity of having a proper debate.
Many people in this country feel that this legislation is not essential. Most of them accept it entirely on the grounds of road safety, but they think it should be left to their own discretion to use seat belts or not. If they get the impression that more and more regulations are being imposed on them with minimum discussion in this House they will suspect increasingly that this House does not reflect their views as well as it should. They will also suspect that they are being


run by regulation, as opposed to the parliamentary democratic system.

Dr. Gilbert: I am not quite clear about this. Is the hon. Member asking me whether I am prepared to give an undertaking that any change in the Construction and Use Regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure?

Mr. Fry: One could say that with very minor changes in the regulations it may well be that that would not be necessary. If the Minister sees a minor change which will actually save more lives he may think it unwise to take up a lot of parliamentary time debating it. But the point I am making is that because this Bill depends very much on Regulation 17, if there is a major change to this regulation, in these circumstances the scope of the Bill will be changed as well, and we believe that such an amendment to the Bill should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope I have made myself clear.

Dr. Gilbert: Dr. Gilbert indicated assent.

Mr. Fry: It is absolutely vital that the public are aware that we are considering the many representations which have been made to us. This is one reason why we should not be stampeded into easy acceptance of the Minister's soothing words.
There was the problem of crash helmets on motor cycles. I took part in the Committee stage of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) which will allow exemption from the wearing of safety helmets for members of the Sikh religion. If the right consultation had taken place at the time the crash helmets legislation was introduced—and I accept that it was introduced under the administration of my party—this kind of problem would have been foreseen. As it is now, it has been necessary to bring about a whole new piece of legislation to meet the point about Sikhs.
Therefore, if we find that we are still awaiting a full list of exemptions, and we are being asked to pass this Bill in the dark, to a certain extent, without knowing what is to follow, the very least the Government can do is to concede one very small step further than the Minister has already gone. If he can satisfy us on that point, we could come to agree

ment, but if he insists on the strict terms of the new clause, in the interests of those who are unhappy about the Bill and those who want much closer parliamentary control of the Executive I shall ask my hon. Friends to support the amendments.

12 noon.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am not sure who are the people to whom the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has referred who are unhappy about the Bill. He said that most people consider that the wearing of seat belts should be left to the discretion of the individual motorist. I do not know on what he bases that supposition. My own judgment, from feedback from my constituency, is that people are becoming far more safety-conscious and that the overwhelming majority believe in enforcement as set out in the Bill.
The hon. Member suggested that the Government had been dragging their feet over the Bill. I do not know the truth of that assertion but it is clear that his amendment would mean substantial delays as parliamentary time was found for debate.

Mr. Fry: There is no disagreement on the first set of regulations. All I am concerned about is future amendments to the regulations. It is not our intention to delay the date of operation of the Bill.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister has clearly made a proper concession on the first set of regulations. It is now suggested that each subsequent set, however important it is, should be dealt with by means of the affirmative procedure. The hon. Member conceded the weakness of that point. Searching around for some point of importance, he mentioned the coaches which may yet be brought within this legislation. He conceded that it was impractical and time wasting for each amendment and tuning of the proposals in the light of experience, whatever their intrinsic merit, to come before the House. So he concedes the Minister's point that it is likely that only relatively small technical amendments will be involved. The major issues will come up by way of affirmative procedure with adequate safeguards. Therefore, I certainly support the Minister.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I support the amendment because I have come to the conclusion that the negative procedure is becoming a farce. Order after Order is prayed against but no time can be found for debates. If it is found, it is only months after the Order has come into force and there can be no question of withdrawing or even amending it, as can be done under the affirmative procedure. I regard the possibility of amendment as an important consideration. Over and over again with the negative procedure one finds that, since the matter has been in force sometimes three or four months and is the law of the land, even if a Minister would like to withdraw it and substitute another because some good point has been discovered, he cannot in practice do so.
The advantage of the affirmative procedure is that the Order does not come into force until the House says that it should. In a complicated and controversial matter such as that which has been put forward in the various consultative documents, these matters should be discussed in the House before coming into force. They will be susceptible of amendment in practice because the Minister can withdraw them and substitute others, a change not having yet been made. Therefore, I do not regard the negative procedure—in any matter, not just this one—as a democratic control.
For example, a very important matter at the moment concerns the withdrawal of legal aid in connection with divorce proceedings. It should, but cannot, be debated. Because it is subject to the negative procedure, there is no time for a prayer to be put down or debated before December, when it will have been in force for many months.
If one is serious, one must admit that the state of business in the House—not merely in this congested June and July but increasingly, because the negative procedure is increasingly used—has made democratic control almost a farce. So long as that is so, in a subject which touches sensitively on the liberty of the subject, we must insist that amendments to the rules as well as the original rules should be subject to some democratic control—and only the affirmative procedure can give that.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that it would be wrong for small amendments to be debated in this way. But if they are merely matters of detail, they will not be debated in this way. We are not quite so silly as to debate matters of no imporance, but if they are important, as I think they will be, we should have the chance on behalf of our constituents to debate their details.
For example, the Minister will probably get into great difficulty with his exemptions for very short journeys, for stature and for medical conditions such as obesity. With the best will in the world, as time goes on, he will find that he will have to amend the original regulations. He must therefore give us the chance to see the amendments. If the negative procedure is followed that chance is an empty and hollow one and no democratic control at all.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I, too, support the amendments. We were grateful for the Minister's undertaking in Committee to introduce a new clause to ensure that the first regulations were made by the affirmative procedure. But he will agree that in accepting his undertaking and withdrawing our amendments we also made it clear that that was without prejudice to our taking this point on Report. So here we are taking it.
With respect to him, the Minister is approaching this matter in the wrong way. He says that the principle has been approved and he has made a concession about the first regulations, and that after that the matter should go through what have unfortunately become the normal channels. But some of these normal channels should have been stopped up a long time ago. Some of them are developing most alarmingly. The Long Title says that the Bill confers the Dower to make regulations. That is all that is in the Bill, and this is the kind of legislation which we should consider, even in principle, very carefully.
The argument seems to be that the principle of the Bill was approved on Second Reading—the principle being the conferment of power to make regulations—so there is nothing left to talk about and that when the regulations are made they should go through under the negative procedure. That is an abdication of the responsibility of legislation.
What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has been saying about the negative procedure is all too true. He and I remember the days when time had to be found for a Prayer. When hon. Members put down a Prayer to annul regulations, time had to be found within the 40 days for which the relevant Act provided. That situation has gradually been eroded. First, there were a few Prayers for which time was not found, but over the past four or five years it has become normal for time not to be found. It is now found only in special circumstances, and even then after a long delay. What control of legislation does that give us, when we pass an Act conferring power to make regulations and nothing else, except the date when it comes into force and the Short Title?

Mr. Anderson: The hon. and learned Gentleman must concede that the effect of the voices of the House on Second Reading was not just the conferring of power to make regulations but the decisive opinion of the House that the wearing of seat belts should be compulsory. That is the key point of principle that was decided.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put what interpretation he likes on a Second Reading debate. It is difficult to say that that is the meaning of that debate, because many hon. Members spoke and each expressed a different opinion. The only opinion of the House that was collected was rather like that on the motion that will be put at 4 o'clock—whether it should be passed. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituents have become so preoccupied with thoughts of safety since he started to represent them, that it would be wise to be cautious about interpreting what the Second Reading debate meant.
In any case, even if that debate were indeed an endorsement of the compulsory wearing of scat belts rather than of the power to make them compulsory, it is an empty frame, and the picture to go inside it must be painted. The idea that it is a great concession that we should be allowed a voice on the first painting, the first version, is extraordinary.
I should go further than my hon. and learned Friend went on the question of the negative procedure. It is not only that so many Prayers are never brought

on—and those with which we are concerned might well fall into that category. Can any hon. Member recall an occasion when a Prayer has been passed? I raised the point in Committee, when the only one I could remember—and I have been here a fair time—was an occasion when the present Lord Wigg, then the hon. Member for Dudley and a friend of mine, decided to challenge one of our Prayers. We were not going to vote on it, but Labour Members put in Tellers for us to show how few of us were here. However, they forgot to put in Tellers for their own side and we inadvertently won the Division because there were no Tellers for the Government. That is the last time I remember the House passing a Prayer to annul a Statutory Instrument.
Prayers always come on after 10 o'clock, and quite often later. There is usually no Whip on them, and there are very few hon. Members present. The attendance is not as thin as it is on the Government side today, but it is usually very thin. The debate is of little consequence, but when the bells ring hon. Members come in from all parts of the building and the Government are sustained by hon. Members who have not the faintest idea what it is all about. I have watched it happen for more than a quarter of a century. The suggestion that this is an effective procedure is nonsense. It is the abdication of legislative function. That is regrettable but true. That being so, if we regard these matters as being of any importance, we must have the affirmative procedure.
12.15 p.m.
The Minister said, "We have approved the principle. Therefore, this is rather small stuff." I do not think that his mind can have gone with his tongue. I seem to remember that he and I were opposed to the principle of something else—our entry into the Common Market—not long ago. That was carried against us, but does he seriously contend that our scrutiny of what follows should on that account be relaxed? I do not think that he does.
When the hon. Gentleman talked about the sort of changes that might follow the initial regulations, he said that when it came to requiring the wearing of scat belts in stage coaches that would be quite a thought, that it would have to be carefully considered, and so on. But if that


were done by way of an amendment it would come under the negative procedure, according to the clause. The right hon. Gentleman could make the wearing of seat belts by motor cyclists compulsory. That is covered by the Bill. It would be a remarkable thing, but it would still go through under the negative procedure. I suppose that there could be an exemption for Sikhs. [An hon. Member: "Perambulators."] They are not normally motor vehicles. The fact is that this kind of legislation is a novelty for Britain. We all want to see how it will work.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to the document we received this morning and have barely had time to absorb. I acquit the Minister of any discourtesy in that regard. He has been very helpful all the way through and is not responsible for the general incompetence of the Government machine. As we have glanced at that document at the same time as we have tried to listen to what is going on, we find that it is all too obvious that there are some very odd provisions in it. A milk roundsman would have to carry a pocket calculator with him. I do not know what would happen to him when he was metricated.
The Bill will affect millions of people, and people feel quite strongly about it. I do. I wonder whether I shall have to buy a vintage car, in order to preserve my freedom in this matter, or become a milk roundsman.

Mr. Clement Freud: Or a psychiatric case.

Mr. Bell: I could probably obtain a medical certificate.

Mr. Freud: No trouble.

Mr. Bell: Then, like the late Labour Member for Central Ayrshire, Mr. Emrys Hughes, I could produce it. I remember him producing his discharge certificate and saying that he was the only Member of the House who had documentary proof of his sanity—his discharge certificate from a mental hospital. However, I must not be diverted up these attractive side alleys.
Amending regulations will come along and we shall want to express our opinions on them. We shall not do so effectively

unless we have the affirmative resolution procedure.
I hope that the Minister will give the matter second thoughts. He said rather grandly at the end of his speech that he could not advise his hon. Friends to accept the amendments. I did not see a flicker pass across the face of any one of the three. I think he still has a locus poenitentiae. I think his hon. Friends apart from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is so preoccupied with safety, will be prepared to accept revised guidance from him under the affirmative procedure, and I hope that he will decide that in the end what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is proposing is far more sensible and practicable.
After all, we shall not have a flood of regulations. We shall have the initial ones which will remain in force for a year or so, and then we shall have the main revision. That main revision ought to go under the affirmative procedure. After that we can look at the matter again. I hope the Minister will change his mind and will advise acceptance of this amendment.

Mr. Carlisle: I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Committee which considered this Bill, but I am glad to see that when it comes to Report it certainly is, or intends to be, in rather better form than when it left the House originally, in that the Minister has conceded, and the Committee has carried out that concession, that this new clause, with the regulations which he proposes to introduce, should be subject to the affirmative order of this House.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that he did not know who opposed this Bill. Let me tell him that I have always opposed it. I opposed it when it had a Second Reading in this House, and I propose to continue to oppose it if and when the Bill reaches Third Reading. I hope that some hon. Members at least will vote against it on that occasion.
The fundamental issue is whether it is right for the criminal law to interfere with the individual's freedom to decide how he he should provide for his own safety. I must say to the hon. Member for Swansea, East that although I can understand the contrary argument, I believe there are


many people who feel very strongly that this Bill unnecessarily and unreasonably extends the barriers of the criminal law.

Mr. Anderson: The point which the hon. and learned Gentleman must concede is that no man is an island. There are social implications in accidents, which may be aggravated by not wearing a seat belt, because of the cost to the community, hospitalisation and so on.

Mr. Carlisle: If I were to follow the hon. Gentleman on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that you would probably rule me out of order. These matters were raised on Second Reading. I said then, and I still maintain, that the whole of the evidence is not one way. So long as people argue that they believe they are safer by not wearing a seat belt, it is wrong to force them by the criminal law to do so, although I believe that they should be encouraged by all other means to wear them.
The Minister said that the only thing which had given him hesitation in bringing in the proposal for the affirmative rather than the negative procedure was that this could mean a longer delay of two or three weeks in the implementation of the regulations and that this could mean more deaths on the road. That is a conclusion which I do not accept, and I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) does not accept it either. It is not a question of the use of the criminal law to save deaths. It is a matter of the use or non-use of seat belts. It is one matter to argue that people should wear seat belts. It is another matter to say that we should make it a criminal offence if people do not do things which are in their own interests. However, I am probably going rather wide of the subject and I will direct myself to the amendment.
As I understand it, it is the regulations which make the criminal offence. It is not the Bill as such which does so. The Bill merely gives power to the Minister to make regulations. The criminal offence—one which will affect every person in this country, be he motorist of passenger—is created by the regulations. Therefore, I am delighted that the Minister has agreed that those regulations and the exemptions from them

should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
However, I ask the Minister to consider that if that right in principle for the first set of regulations, surely that should be applied equally to later sets of regulations which may be brought in—any new regulations changing any exemptions, either widening or narrowing the degree of the criminal law and making all of us, as motorists and as passengers in vehicles, even if we do not drive, subject to the possibility of committing a criminal offence. Therefore, it seems to me that not only is it palpably obvious that those regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure but that any amendments to those regulations should equally be subject to affirmative order.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that the amendments might be minor; but even though they be minor. I believe that they still must be subject to an affirmative resolution. The alternative to that argument is that the amendments may be major. Is the hon. Member arguing that however major an amendment may be, it still should not be subject to affirmative order? That is the effect of this proposed new clause unless it is amended in the way that we propose.
I hope that when we have an opportunity later to debate a new set of amendments—I suggest that the draft consultative letter would come better on those amendments—we may persuade the Minister that the regulations which he proposes to be the first regulations are too wide and too tight, and that those of us who oppose this legislation will try to persuade him that in the first place he ought to bring them in, on a more provisional and experimental basis, limiting their application, for example, to rural areas or main roads. If we could persuade the Minister of something of that nature, if the experiment were successful and he wished to extend it to all users of urban roads, even on small journeys, that would clearly be a major amendment which would be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution.
I hope that the Minister, who has made a major concession in bringing forward this new clause, will consider going


further and will meet us on our amendments to it. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, the negative procedure to a large extent has become a farce. One never gets the chance to debate matters under that procedure before the amendments become law. The great advantage of the affirmative procedure is that not only is the outside world consulted, as the Minister is bound to consult it under the Road Traffic Act under which the regulations are made but also Parliament is entitled to express a view on those regulations before they become the law of the land. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough will press the amendment should the Minister not feel able to accept it.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I have not spoken on this Bill before, but I do so now because I am genuinely alarmed by the increasing number of fussy and burdensome regulations directed particularly against motorists. The persecution of the private motorist is one of the less satisfactory features of this Government. It builds up to a point where I am fearful that the motorist will become extremely irritated with the police and that relations between the motorist and the police will deteriorate. However, that is a subject that I probably should not pursue at this stage.

Mr. Jessel: How can my hon. Friend regard a measure that would save the lives of 1,000 motorists a year as a persecution of motorists?

Mr. Ridley: It would be possible to say that all houses should not have stairs because more people are killed falling downstairs than in any other way. It is possible to think of legislation that would conceivably prevent a large number of deaths, but we have not thought fit to embark on the infringement of personal liberty to that extent. One could stop all boxing, motor racing, motor cycling, smoking and a large number of pursuits, thus effectively reducing the scope of the human being to express his preferences.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: would my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Rid

ley) extend that argument to say that, for example, in the United States, there is no need to insist on manufacturers implementing safety measures for motor cars because that is the same kind of infringement of personal freedom?

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I am being taken away from the amendment, but I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). One can draw a firm distinction between what is laid down to be necessary for the safety of motor vehicles and what people have to do.
The way that the Government push these measures through the House is extraordinary, because nobody ever comes to listen from their own side. I am not sure that we might not have seat belts attached to the Government Benches and strap in Labour Members day after day in that green expanse. They come here not to debate but to go upstairs to PLP meetings. It is a scandal the way in which members of the Labour Party use the House. They use it as a place to have party meetings and then do a bit of voting to carry through Government measures. I have some sympathy with the Minister of State who has sat "alone and palely loitering" on the Front Bench to get this legislation through.
The amendment is sensible and I shall support it. The Bill is a pretty bad one, because we are being asked only to agree to the power to make regulations, and yet it is those regulations, that matter. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that the House had already voted for the principle of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. It did nothing of the sort: it voted for the power to make regulations that some people should wear seat belts.
We are told that some people will have to do that and others will not. It is the kind of hybrid Bill syndrome with which we have had so much trouble recently. When we are legislating for some citizens in a different way from other citizens it is essential that provisions be written into legislation so that they can be amended before it is passed.
What if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say "Give me the power


to raise taxes and I shall publish regulations to tell you what the taxes are and, what is more, the tax will apply to some people and not to others." That illustrates the hybrid nature of the Bill and shows how essential it is for the regulations to be approved by affirmative Order.
It is worth going through some of the exemptions to prove my point. If one suffers from certain medical conditions, one can get a certificate of exemption from one's doctor. That will cause the most frightful problems. Doubtless there will be doctors who will issue certificates more freely than others. I shall seek out such a doctor. I have a conscientious objection to wearing a seat belt because I am forced to do so by the Bill. Admittedly, I have worn one hitherto, but I shall not do so until the Bill becomes law because I do not like the compulsion involved.
I might even form a sect, rather like the Sikhs, who have a deep-seated religious objection to wearing crash helmets. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) will bring in a Bill to exempt people from wearing seat belts because of their dislike of this binding of the body to the seat? Perhaps there will be doctors who will assist my sect and give its members a certificate of exemption?

Mr. Philip Holland: I understand that the Sikhs are not required by their religion to wear the turban and their objection is, therefore, conscientious rather than religious. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) could form a sect.

Mr. Ridley: It is a matter of conscience. The same business of conscience applies in the closed-shop situation.
One of my constituents wrote to me to say that he had been involved in a motor accident while wearing a seat belt and had been severely injured. He said that he would not have been so badly injured if he had not been wearing a seat belt.

Mr. Jessel: How does he know?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse)) should accept that there are differences of opinion on the issue. My constituent said that since the accident he had had nightmares and suffered slight brain

damage. He said that whenever he was required to wear a seat belt, he became claustrophobic and frightened and was subjected to grave distress.
The Minister said that there would be an exemption for people like my constituent, but what is to stop anyone else from saying that he, too, suffers from claustrophobia? Perhaps members of my sect will be able to claim that every time we go "clunk, click" we break into a sweat of terror and can claim a certificate. That illustrates the need to amend the legislation and shows that there will be a need for new regulations after they have been tested once or twice in the courts and experience has been gained.
The same is true of the stature exemption. Is one to get a certificate to say that one is under 5 ft. tall? One might be under 5 ft. tall when one gets a certificate but then grow up. I can see an interesting scene on the side of a motorway with a policeman armed with a tape measure measuring a motorist who insists that he is 4 ft. 11 in. while the policeman insists that according to his tape measure he is 5 ft. 1 in. Will they be measured with shoes on or off? The mind boggles at the picture of barefoot motorists being measured in icy conditions on top of Shap on the M6. Of course the regulations will have to be amended.
Another exemption is politely headed "Practicability" It says:
Obese people will find that in some seats the belt is too short to be worn".
Presumably there will be a certificate of obesity. Who is to say who is obese and who is not? I am mentioning no names at all. I wish to make my remarks strictly impersonal.
If we say that obese people are exempt, I do not say that anyone would go as far as to stick a pillow up his jersey, but there will be arguments about who is obese and who is not. It will be obnoxious because people will be in the invidious difficulty of owning up to obesity or not getting an exemption. That will cause grevious problems.
The exemption for short journeys will cause more problems than anything else. The Minister has proposed in his consultative document that one must be on a road subject to a speed limit and that


one's purpose is to make 10 or more stops in the course of a mile. That involves an exercise set between two points not more than 200 yards apart. Apart from a milk roundsman or other similar activities involving deliveries, we must think what will happen when we go canvassing. It is a relief that we shall be able to canvass without seat belts in the more scattered parts of our constituency which we have had to reach by car, but I can imagine appalling definition problems about short journeys.
I notice that in some places—this applies to New South Wales—there is an exemption for passengers over 70. That is obviously well in advance of old South Wales. Therefore, those old people are lucky because they will be allowed to make up their own minds. I should have thought that would be a useful exemption for us to make, because old people may often find difficulty in wearing seat belts and obviously should be excused.
Therefore, in all these categories of people who for some reason or another are not to be included the principle has long ago gone out of the window. There are certain sections of people who will have to wear seat belts, but large numbers of people will get off. The obnoxious implication is that this is a matter not of principle but of expediencey. We are prepared to insist on bringing in the criminal law to save lives in respect of some groups of people, but in respect of others those provisions are not to apply.
The guts of the Bill are contained in the regulations. The Minister should be severely censured for having brought in a Bill on these lines. If he had brought in regulations in the form of a Bill and if those matters had been carefully discussed after consultation, the House could have discussed those considered proposals and we could have amended them in Committee. However, instead it is suggested that we should be allowed to "have a go" only at the first regulations that are laid, and that even at that stage, to avoid all the difficult issues of discrimination that will arise, we may not be able to amend them. It is saying to Parliament "You give me the power to do what I like and I shall not expose the detailed and difficult arguments that will arise to the combined wisdom of Parliament".
It is most unsatisfactory that we are to have affirmative resolution only for the first set of regulations. We need at least a second chance at them on another affirmative resolution. As problems come to light, we shall need to press the Minister to bring in a further series of changes on an affirmative resolution so that we can debate these matters.
Therefore, it is not the Bill that we are discussing today, but the power to make regulations. We need to have the maximum parliamentary scrutiny of the actual law when it comes—that is to say, that contained in the regulations. I am sure that enough has been said to illustrate the difficulties of interpretation and to convince the Minister to take this one small step.

Mr. Moate: When my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) spoke to the amendments, I agreed with everything he said. However, when he spoke about matters that might have been more appropriate for a Second Reading speech or for detailed scrutiny in Committee, I parted company from him. It is a matter of great regret that so much intellectual ability and passion for the cause of liberty to which most of us subscribe are being misapplied on this issue.
12.45 p.m.
Here we have a fairly modest and totally practical measure that will save 1,000 lives a year, if the statistics are anywhere near right, as I think the evidence shows they are. Furthermore, the Bill will avoid 10,000 serious casualties a year. The strength of the case lies in the practicality of these proposals, and they will achieve a major saving of life for a fairly modest extension of a principle that is already well established—namely, the principle that seat belts should be fixed in cars.
A Government advertising campaign has encouraged people to wear seat belts. Therefore, in opposing this measure my hon. Friends have got the matter out of perspective. Loss of life on the roads is a feature that we have come to accept almost complacently as unavoidable. It is not. Therefore, Parliament must take seriously any measure that can save life on this scale.
Having said that, I regret that the Minister is not able to help us a little more today. I accept that the Bill imposes a great restraint on motorists, but I think that we should try to impose a great restraint on the Executive. If the Bill is to work, it must gain the good will and acceptance of the public. If the public are to accept it, they must believe that it has been properly scrutinised and examined by Parliament.
True to his pledge in Committee, the Minister has come back with this helpful concession by providing that there should be an affirmative resolution for the first set of regulations. However, he has had to bring the Bill before the House on a Friday. I do not say that that is his fault. It is the fault of the Whips, and indeed the Minister and his predecessor have had a long, uphill struggle to bring the matter to this stage of consideration. But it is unfair that he should offer this immense chance to the Bill's opponents on a Friday. Vocal and eloquent opposition on a Friday can do dreadful things to a Bill. I hope that the Minister will recognise that further opportunities will have to be given for consideration of this measure in the near future.
Having got us here on a Friday, the Minister has got himself onto a predicament. He should try not to make matters worse by refusing to make a concession that is obviously in the interests of Parliament and that can only help to improve the Bill.
The Minister argued that even this first concession would result in delay. I do not think that that is the case. The Minister had already conceded that there would have to be a debate on these matters, and that it was light for Parliament to examine the first set of regulations. Therefore, no delay will be incurred in that respect.
The Minister further argued that subsequent regulations would result in further delays, but in the belief that there should be parliamentary scrutiny and public acceptance of these matters, we have to accept that there will always be some delay. The Executive has no monopoly of wisdom and there must be a proper public scrutiny. Indeed, the Minister said that errors occur in regulations and obvionsly the Government have to come back rapidly with new provisions. Again, Parliament will need to examine any further

provisions—which is what is meant by "proper scrutiny".
We know that sometimes the introduction of new provisions seeking to amend earlier legislation makes matters worse. We have the classic example of the exemption in respect of the wearing of crash helmets by Sikhs. The amending legislation in that respect has caused great controversy and more dissension, perhaps, than the original regulations. Therefore, it is not the case that subsequent regulations will be less controversial or less important. The could be more important. Therefore, it is vital for the House to have a right to scrutinise these matters, because they deal with issues of great sensitivity to the public.
In Committee the Minister said that there was a prospective change in the Construction and Use Regulations that would encourage the fitting of seat belts in the rear seats of cars. It will have important consequences in future for the Minister or his successor if the wearing of seat belts in rear seats is enforced. This would be a matter of great controversy. I might support compulsory wearing in rear seats. I certainly support the compulsory fitting of anchorages. But I would defend the right of Parliament to debate the major extension of the principle.
Extending the class of vehicles and exemptions and the possibility of regulations for children are all matters of great importance. If the Minister were in opposition, he would be clamouring for debates if new regulations were being introduced by a Conservative Government. The negative resolution procedure is grossly inadequate. We need proper scrutiny and debate.
The Minister will get his legislation—which I want him to get soon—very much more easily if he makes a concession and accepts the amendments.

Mr. Dykes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on putting the central points of the debate. I did not intend to speak but, having listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), which were more applicable to the wider aspects of the debate, I was tempted to take part, but not to follow him along the path he trod.
The attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to apply profound and justified doctrines of political freedom, which are extremely important to us all, to an area like this was to misuse them and divert them into the wrong intellectual channels. He spoiled the case for the political freedoms which are so important in a modern, advanced industrial society.

Mr. Carlisle: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there must be a limit somewhere? Every time the boundaries are extended one stage further, it is much easier to extend them the next time. Where would my hon. Friend draw the line?

Mr. Dykes: You might be glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I resisted the temptation to follow that line of thought. It would, however, be marvellous to have a trade-off to counter a disagreeable tendency which worries so many of us and to restore some of the old freedoms.
Road safety legislation in the modern world of congested traffic is still at an early stage. It is regrettably right that regulations will become increasingly strict. I fear this development and I hope that it will be carefully handled by future governments. We do not want the police to be seen as persecutors of the motorist. Some of my hon. Friends have claimed that the Bill will cause irritation to motorists, but their greatest irritation is caused by other motorists on our highly congested and dangerous roads. Regrettably, an increasing number of precautionary regulations will be needed in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I hesitated to intervene in this discussion earlier, but some observations are getting a little wide of the mark. We are dealing with regulations when they reach Parliament and how to deal with them in Parliament.

Mr. Dykes: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a pity that the Minister, having made what some of us regard as a major concession with the new clause, will not take the relatively small additional step of agreeing that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply to future regulations. I hope that the draft consultation paper, which is ludicrous in many respects, will be honed

to a Wilkinson sword degree of precision and rationality to reduce the complexities and exemptions to a modest total and to make the affirmative resolution procedure even easier.
I share the fears about the excessive growth of the negative resolution procedure in recent years. It is an alarming tendency and redounds on the general argument about the excess of legislation of all kinds, which is one of our major problems. However, this sensible measure should not be singled out for harsh treatment in that wider argument. The Minister would be doing himself a service and enhancing his illustrious reputation by agreeing to the small additional step for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has asked.
It is a matter that unites us on this side, whether we are passionately in favour of the compulsory use of seat belts, have grave doubts about the Bill, or are in the middle of the argument. The Minister should be aware of the strength of feeling on the Opposition side of the House. There is no one on the Labour Benches except the hon. Member for Swansea. East (Mr. Anderson), and the feelings of my hon. Friends represent the general view of the public on this matter. If the Minister does not make the concession, there could be difficulties later in the debate.
The Bill is a first small step. We can go on to, for instance, the installation of seat belts in rear seats as I have in my own car. That makes me feel smug, but it is right to have the compulsory use in rear seats as well. All this will come.
Let the Minister have regard to his parliamentary responsibilities and deal with this matter in a balanced and sensible rather than an oppressive manner.

Mr. Carol Mather: The matter which divided us in Committee was not whether we were in favour of the Bill, but whether we thought it was an adequate or a thoroughly inadequate Bill. We spent some time scrutinising the Bill, which, effectively, has only one clause, which says that seat belts will be worn.
If we had not pressed the Minister to produce a little more information, we should never have had a sight of the draft regulations and therefore never


have had a proper discussion in Committee. By pressing the Minister, we eventually received the draft regulations, which are the guts of the Bill. The Bill has no substance, so no substance was being discussed. It was only when the Minister produced the draft regulations that our discussions had any substance.
The consultative letter, which the Minister has now produced, differs slightly from the draft regulations and I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that so far we have been discussing this matter in a vacuum. There is nothing in the Bill: it is all to be done by regulations.
Some details have been changed in the regulations about obese people and those of small stature. We originally had exemption for people with short arms. That exemption does not appear in the new consultative document. We were at some pains in Committee to discover how long or how short a short arm should be. The Minister has revised that.
When we say that these regulations should be discussed using the affirmative procedure we have in mind that at some point regulations will be introduced to provide for seat belts in rear seats. Equally, there is the prospect of belts being fitted in coaches. We are all aware of the number of coach accidents that have taken place recently. Once this legislation is enacted I would expect such regulations to follow. We must have the chance to discuss such matters in the House.
1.0 p.m.
We have found that seat belts are still at an experimental stage. In Committee we discussed the inertia belt, the fixed belt and other types which were being introduced experimentally. The body cushion was one such type. We do not yet have the right answer. We can expect that there will be a great deal more experiment and research, with the result that new regulations are bound to be introduced.
The regulations are necessarily still fairly tentative. There is certain to be an experimental period for the regulations and exemptions. It is inevitable that changes will be made. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) referred to this as the main revision that is bound to take

place after a year or so. The details are not in this measure and it follows that when they arise they should be fully discussed. We expect important changes to be made in the regulations and we must have the chance to debate them.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This is a small Bill but it has important effects upon the liberty of the subject in certain respects. I object to the way in which it is drafted, since it virtually gives carte blanche to the Minister to introduce at his discretion almost any regulation, using the negative order procedure. That procedure has proved to be unsatisfactory, first because there is a time limit on the debate and secondly because there is the practical difficulty that it is almost impossible to alter the regulations. If they were regulations of no consequence, that would not much matter.
The point is that we are giving the Government powers that it will be impossible for us to debate in future. I did not serve on the Committee but I understand that the initial regulations are to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I can see no reason for excluding subsequent regulations.
I am worried by the range of exemptions involved. It is extremely difficult for a doctor to have to determine medical exemptions. We shall be giving the courts an immense amount of trouble in the interpretation of the regulations. There may be some doctors who, like me, however honest they wish to be, are slightly biased against seat belts. This is a fairly widespread opinion. It will be difficult to differentiate between persons when granting exemptions.
I am sure that the Minister will not disagree that it is difficult, when drafting regulations, to make them so foolproof that a doctor acting in good faith can sign a certificate without any difficulty. At present when someone tells a doctor that he feels ill, the doctor has to give the benefit of the doubt to the patient if he cannot find anything wrong. It is extremely difficult to refuse a certificate.

Dr. Gilbert: It never has been and never will be my intention to attempt to draft detailed descriptions for medical exemptions. What we are making absolutely clear is that we shall accept the advice of the medical profession. We


are inviting the BMA and other professional bodies to circulate their membership and advise us about appropriate conditions. It is no part of my function to prescribe such conditions and they will not be incorporated in the regulations.

Dr. Glyn: That reinforces my point. If the regulations are to be reasonable, that is all the more reason why the Minister need not be afraid of using the affirmative procedure.
I strongly support the amendment. If we can allow the regulations to be introduced by way of the affirmative procedure for the first year, it should be possible to do so for all time. The constitutional right of this House is to discuss measures before they are placed on the statute book and before they have been interpreted by the legal profession.
When a Bill of this nature gives such sweeping powers to the Minister, it is wrong for him to refuse to bend and allow all subsequent regulations to be dealt with by the affirmative procedure. By agreeing to our request the Minister would be saying to the country that he or his successor had no intention of using the negative procedure to push through regulations which might impose further restrictions on the liberty of the subject. He would be showing that it was his intention to allow an adequate chance to alter or amend the regulations, or at least to discuss them. The Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.

Mr. Freud: I am pro-seat belts and anti-compulsion, and I believe that a large number of Members on both sides of the House are in a similar position. The Bill set out to save lives. We are all agreed about that. What frightens me particularly is that the Bill may eventually do nothing but punish carelessness. There are so many exemptions that no one not wishing to wear a seat belt will be unable, using one or other of the exemptions, to obtain a certificate.
The Minister said "We shall accept advice from the medical profession." That is one of the most fatuous remarks that could be made. It is like saying "We shall accept the advice of Parliament", when we know that we can have 303 voting for and 303 voting against.
What sort of advice do we get at the moment? The medical profession contains doctors who will prescribe soft or hard drugs. It contains doctors who say that Mandrax kills, and other doctors who say that it does not. If we say that we shall accept the advice of the medical profession, in doing so we are lumping together every opinion held by the profession. The one strength of the medical profession has been that if one searches long enough, there is always a doctor who will agree that one really is ill when one may not be. My point, very simply, is that, with the number of exemptions we have here, the Bill will punish those who have not the ingenuity or industry to look carefully enough for exemption.
I am naturally against negative procedures, as everyone must be, because negative procedures give absurd powers, but it is important to remember the words of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who said "Let us remember that this is the early stage." New materials are available with which cars can be built. I was distressed to learn only today, from a garage in my constituency, that if a car made of fibreglass is involved in an accident, it is extremely inadvisable for a driver or a passenger to be wearing a seatbelt. The reason is that fibreglass does not buckle—it breaks—and if the passenger is not wearing a seat belt, he or she will be thrown out, whereas if a seat belt is worn, the likelihood is that the passenger will be cut and much more badly damaged.
I think that we shall be here for some time—we are still only discussing the first new clause and subsequent amendments—and therefore I leave my argument at this point.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I am filled with apprehension, because I was contemplating purchasing the very kind of car to which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) referred.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am passionately pro-seat belts, as I have tried to emphasise to the Minister in the correspondence I have had with him on this subject.
I want to say a few words in favour of the affirmative procedure. in the hope


that the Minister will change his mind about this. He is not an arrogant man and would be the first to admit that he will not get the first regulations right. I think it was one of my hon. Friends who said that the regulations will be almost in the nature of an experiment. That will inevitably be the case.
New kinds of seat belts are being developed. Perhaps in two or three years' time the seat belts on the market will be very much better than those we have at the moment. No doubt seat belts will be produced which will be more suitable for use in coaches and vans than those in use at the moment. On the other hand, we may find many more people who should be in the exempted class than the number contemplated in the list circulated to us.
I live in a village in a fairly rural area. Our newspapers, our milk, our fish, our meat—in fact, almost everything—are delivered by a kindly tradesman. In the course of the week a considerable number of tradesmen call. But we are outside any traffic limits and have no road signs calling attention to 30 or 40 miles per hour limits; therefore none of these kindly people would come within the categories indicated in the memorandum that has been circulated.

Mr. Ronald Bell: They probably use bullock carts.

Mr. Body: We have moved on from that stage in the last year or two. Our area is not alone in having these deliveries by tradesmen. There are very many areas in this category. The people who are doing their jobs at the moment in the way that I have indicated will be caught by the regulations, as now envisaged.
We know perfectly well what will happen. The Minister, with his non-arrogant mind, will let it be known that perhaps we shall have to have some fresh regulations, and the police will receive a hint or two that they need not pursue these tradespeople who are making their deliveries, as so often in the past, without using seat belts, and who can be caught by the strict definition of the regulations as envisaged in the Bill. We shall then have another area of discretionary optional law.
The Minister must know the point has been made to him by chief constables and others that there is a real fear on the part of police officers that optional law is becoming rather too well known. We have had it in relation to the 50 miles per hour speed limit, which is an optional law for very many people. That may be quite wrongly so, but it is a fact. It all means that a little less respect is being shown for the law.
I am sure that the Minister gets about as much as other people, and that he must know that this is the case, even though he looks a little doubtful. The law concerning motoring offences is not receiving the degree of respect that it used to receive some years ago. Anyone who has had any dealings with magistrates' courts and the police will confirm this. Yet when the Minister is seeking to rely upon the negative procedure in introducing this new extension of law, he is inevitably seeking to extend the frontier of optional law and discretionary law. I hope that he will reconsider this point.
I am wholly in favour of seat belts—in fact, I am an "old maid" on the subject. I never drive my car without wearing a seat belt. When someone says smugly that he is having seat belts fitted to the back seats, I can say that I am doing the same. I am wholly in favour of seat belts. But, like others, I believe that there is a limit to the frontiers of the criminal law, and that the requirement that people should be saved from their own folly is beyond that limit.
I have wholly supported what the Minister has done in his campaign to persuade the public to use safety belts, but now he is swinging very far the other way. He is resorting to a bludgeon. He is not satisfied with the kind of penalties laid down in the Bill at the moment.
The Minister, in the Committee stage, said some unduly harsh things about the need for severe penalties. He had in mind the bludgeon, having not succeeded with his persuasion. Having swung from persuasion to bludgeon so violently in introducing these regulations, I feel that the Minister will have great difficulty in getting them accepted. That difficulty will be emphasised by the adequacy of the exemptions, and he will have great difficulty in getting them right at the beginning. Therefore, I hope that he will


be persuaded to accept the principle of the affirmative procedure. If he does that, he is more likely to get these proposals accepted by the public.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I shall detain the House for only a few moments, because I am very anxious to see this legislation on the statute book. Governments of both parties have been far too long in introducing this necessary legislation.
The new clause puts me in something of a dilemma. Although I am passionately in favour of legislation being introduced to make the wearing of seat belts in the front seats of vehicles compulsory, I am equally disturbed by the very substantial progress that we are seeing towards legislating by statutory instrument. This is a complicated subject and one which creates difficulties not just for the hon. Gentleman's Department but for every Department of State in administering our highly complex legislation.
I suspect that I shall even get the agreement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) when I say that we should legislate less. But, unhappily, in order to achieve fairness, it is necessary to make a number of fairly complex exemptions to this legislation. If I fall out about this with the Government at all it will be because it is too widely and not too narrowly drawn, as has been suggested by some of my hon. Friends who are clearly opposed to the whole principle.
I shall not support my hon. Friends in their amendments to this new clause. However, I am not sure that I can support the Government, either, for the reasons I have stated. I believe that this is a substantial concession, and I am sorry that my hon. Friends have been churlish enough not to accept it.

Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for his last remarks.
I do not accept that the Government amendments which appear later on the Notice Paper represent a reversion to the bludgeon. However, possibly we can discuss that when we reach those amendments later in our proceedings.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked me for various assur

ances. He asked whether I could give an undertaking concerning the situation in which a change in Construction and Use Regulation No. 17 would automatically involve an extension of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that such an extension would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
However, the hon. Member for Wellingborough may be under a slight misapprehension about the precise nature of these regulations. In the first place, Construction and Use Regulation No. 17 would not of itself involve any extension of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I can set his mind at rest in that respect. He will be aware that Construction and Use Regulations No. 17, in the first place, was subject to the negative procedure. In fact, a number of remarks have been made by Opposition Members who are concerned about the use of the negative procedure. Possibly they overlook the fact that, whether or not they approve of it, this is a normal way of dealing with regulations in road traffic law. I am glad to have the assent of the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). It was his Government who passed the Road Traffic Act 1972 and, with only one exception which is the possibility of a change in the prescribed blood-alcohol limit, every Order to be made under this quite substantial Act is done by the negative procedure. That was clearly acceptable to the hon. and learned Gentleman when his party was in Government, and I have no doubt that it was to his hon and learned Friends.
I am seeking not to make a party point. I am saying that I am not creating any new precedent.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that. I think that I said in Committee that the Minister had made a substantial concession in agreeing that the first regulations under this Bill should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Dr. Gilbert: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I wanted to get it on the record that our method of trying to proceed in this matter in one way represented some iniquitous new burden being placed on the general public. Certainly it is not a new way of trying to rush matters through Parliament.
I always enjoy listening to contributions from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He is probably the supreme master of hyperbole in this House. But it passes my comprehension that anyone could suggest that this measure is against the interests of motorists when it is trying to save their lives and the lives of their families and trying to prevent their being seriously injured, disabled and blinded. It amounts almost to a perversion of language. The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously suggest that the Government are pushing through this legislation when at every stage it has been subject to a free vote—on Second Reading, in Committee, and now on Report—and when on Second Reading there was a free vote of 400 hon. Members present with a majority of more than 100 in favour of the principle of the Bill. The Bill also has the support of many right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) referred to the difficulties of getting debates on the negative procedure and he said that our proceedings were often reduced to a meaningless cypher because of the time difficulty. A vast proportion of the matters subject to the negative procedure are never debated, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, if hon. Members feel strongly about a matter and they pray against it, time is found. I have personal experience of that. With the best of motives, I attempted to introduce a measure with respect to another matter of road safety concerning the use of headlights. On that occasion, time was found for a Prayer and, in view of the strong feelings that were put forward, I withdrew the measure so that there could be consultations. If a sufficient number of hon. Members feel strongly about a matter subject to the negative procedure, they are always able to make their will and voices heard.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said that I was adopting the attitude that, after Second Reading, there was nothing left to discuss: I remind him that we had 15 hours in Committee. There is plenty to discuss. We are having the most prolonged consultations. We are having this Report stage. In accordance with an undertaking

that I gave in Committee, we are ensuring that there is a debate on the Floor of the House in respect of the regulations when they are introduced.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I did not say that there was nothing left to discuss. I thought that my own performance exemplified the fact that there was something, and I shall repeat it later in the day. What I said was quite different. I said that we must not treat these as routine and small matters merely because the Bill had had a Second Reading.

Dr. Gilbert: I was trying to rebut the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that I thought that there was nothing left to discuss. I am under no such illusion.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), whose support for the general principle of this legislation I greatly welcome, envisaged the possibility of a great many further amendments all of which he thought should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that he is wrong. I cannot give any guarantee about amendments which may be found to be necessary in the future. However, I draw his attention to the fact that we are not legislating in an isolated United Kingdom context. People drive cars on roads all over the world. Other countries have enacted legislation of this kind. We have the benefit of their experience in the drafting of the legislation, in the granting of exemptions, as regards the rate of enforcement and as regards the acceptance of it.
1.30 p.m.
We are not legislating in ignorance. There is nothing peculiar about the way in which Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen drive their cars along the roads in this country as distinct from the way in which an Australian, for example, drives a car along the roads in Australia, except that we drive on the other side of the road. Everything is precisely the same in other respects. The idea that we should have to have a huge number of amendments to the regulations is thoroughly misguided. I see no reason for thinking that that should be necessary. Other States that have introduced legislation of this sort have not had that experience.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer before it comes to a decision. I have considered the representations that have been made. Indeed, I have considered them again today. I am obliged to Opposition Members for their recognition that the new clause represents a considerable move by the Government towards their opinion. I am prepared to consider whether I should invite some of my right hon. and hon. Friends in another place to consider introducing amendments to ensure that there is an affirmative procedure should there be an extension of the use of wearing seat belts as distinct from the extension of exemptions.
I am prepared to consider taking that course, but beyond that I am unable to go today. If the Opposition press the amendment, I must invite my hon. Friends to resist it.

Mr. Fry: Mr. Fry: By leave of the House—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman ask for the leave of the House? If leave is not given, the hon. Gentleman may not speak.

Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am replying to the amendments in my name on which you would put the Question before the Question on the new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The amendments have been discussed, but they may not be moved formally until the Question has been resolved whether the cluase be read a Second time.

Mr. Mather: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I checked this point with the Clerk before the debate began and I was told that the Opposition Front Bench could speak a second time without the leave of the House. I advised my hon. Friend accordingly.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Minister has made what seems to be a fundamental concession in his last few remarks, suggesting that the matter be considered in another place, if the Opposition Front Bench wishes to respond to the concession that appears to be offered by the Minister—I do not know whether it does

—surely there should be some way in which it is entitled to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it might be possible, if the House so wishes, to allow the hon. Gentleman to speak again.

Mr. Fry: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to question the Minister on what appears to be a further concession.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my preoccupation with the Construction and Use Regulations is precisely because I am aware that they are subject to the negative procedure. If they were subject to the affirmative procedure, the question would not have arisen.
The regulations result in an odd situation. For example, the third seat in the front of any motor car does not have to be fitted with a seat belt. It is an odd situation when the third seat in the front need not be fitted with a seat belt whereas the other two seats must be so fitted. There appears to be a need to consider the matter again.
I do not want anyone to gain the impression that we are in any way churlish—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin)—in our attitude to what the Minister has said. I believe that he has made a genuine move towards us. However, I believe that my hon. Friends have made out a powerful case for the amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and myself.
We are saying that whatever procedure is adopted there is a great weakness if a regulation cannot be amended and can only be accepted or declined. That is why we believe that it is essential in matters dealing with the extension of the criminal law for there to be the fullest possible parliamentary debate.
Although some of us are not happy about the Bill, we accept that if it passes into law there must be the greatest possible acceptance on the part of the public. Our proposals are not to delay the implementation of the Bill, or to wreck it. We say, however, that the public must feel that their rights are being properly considered.
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that he has said that he is perfectly willing in


another place to suggest that the Government go further and provide for an extension of the Construction and Use Regulations relating to the fitting of seat belts and that he is considering making those proposals subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Dr. Gilbert: It is beyond my power to offer that. There is no inherent connection between the regulations and the requirement that seat belts be worn. I said that if an amendment to the seat belt regulations involved an extension of compulsory wearing, I should be prepared to consider recommending to another place the amending of the Bill to provide for the affirmative procedure.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

DURATION

'This Act shall expire at the end of one year after its entry into force unless before then it shall have been continued in force for a further period of one year by a resolution of each House of Parliament or by an Act passed for the continuance in force of expiring laws'.—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fry: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's full explanation. That is a sign of the good will that we have on this side of the House. In view of that further concession, I do not think there is any point in pressing the amendments to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed: (a) leave out first "first".—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 48.

Division No. 198.]
AYES
[1.40 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Banks, Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Benyon, W.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Silvester, Fred


Blaker, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Sims, Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawrence, Ivan
Wall, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Miscampbell, Norman



Dykes, Hugh
Moate, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fell, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Richard Body.


Freud, Clement






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Dormand, J. D.
Molloy, William


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Park, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
English, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Bates, Alf
Freeson, Reginald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Stallard, A. W.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Les
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cartwright, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Tinn, James


Clemitson, Ivor
John, Brynmor
Weitzman, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kaufman, Gerald
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Cohen, Stanley
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)



Coleman, Donald
MacFarquhar, Roderick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marks, Kenneth
Mr. David Stoddart and


Cronin, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. John Ellis.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 10, in Clause 2, page 2, line 9 at end insert—
'(2) This Act shall come into force on a day (not earlier than one month after it shall have received Royal Assent) to be prescribed by Order by the Secretary of State'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 9 at end insert—
'(2) This Act shall come into force on a day (not earlier than two months after it shall have received Royal Assent) to be prescribed by Order by the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Bell: Am I right in assuming, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that although we are debating the new clause and the two amendments together, we shall be able to have a separate vote on Amendment No. 10 or Amendment No. 11? Although they can be conveniently debated together, the points raised are different. The new clause relates to the expiry of the legislation and its renewal and Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 relate to its entry into force one month or two months after Royal Assent, so a Division on the new clause would not in fact decide the issue on the other matters. I wonder whether I may have your guidance on that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only difficulty is that Mr. Speaker has not specifically selected Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 for separate Divisions, but perhaps we can see how the debate develops.

Mr. Bell: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it will be clear that these are two separate proposals. Though they raise matters that are perhaps cognate and can be debated together, I submit that it would be right to record our view on each of the proposals. I do not necessarily say that both amendments should be voted upon. It is not for me to say that, because only one amendment stands in my name.
The new clause proposes that the Bill should expire at the end of one year after receiving Royal Assent and then be renewable by resolution or by being included in the schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I have to confess that I have slightly lost track of what happens to that Act these days. I have not seen one for some time, but I suppose we still have one because it perhaps renews the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965.
I think that my proposal is in practicable form, as well as having merits. The reason I suggest that we should have the option of renewal after a year is that this is a new procedure in Britain. I know that we have the crash helmets legislation, which was the first breach of the general principle that one does not force people to do things that are solely for their own benefit. I say "solely for their own benefit". I know that when someone said that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) intervened and talked about the social consequences

of personal injury, but once we admit into consideration the social consequences of acts or omissions, freedom has gone altogether, because one may say that a person who is idle or misdirected in his activities imposes detriment upon his family, those who are dependent upon him, and, by failing to realise the full potential that is in him, to that extent impoverishes the community.
There is no limit to the ramifications of social implications. We are all members of one national society, and everything that we do or do not do has its implications for the whole of that society. Thus, when one is defining the boundaries of freedom one has to take a different criterion from that, and the criterion that one ought to take is whether someone's action directly and significantly affects other people, and not whether it affects them indirectly.

Mr. Body: Detrimentally.

Mr. Bell: Yes, whether it affects them detrimentally; whether it injures them.
In that sense, this is a first major encroachment upon that definition of freedom.
The crash helmets legislation was a clear breach, but it affected a limited number of people and one could say—I did not say it—in favour of that measure that it was at any rate dealing primarily with the young and immature for whom prescription has always been recognised as suitable. I thought that the prescription went too far in that instance, but still that argument was available. In the matter of seat belts that argument is not available.

Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. and learned Friend admit that there are many precedents for this? One can quote the example of cyclists not being allowed to hang on to moving vehicles, of people not being free to buy dangerous drugs without prescription, of people having to comply with safety regulations in factories, and of people having to wear seat belts when travelling in aircraft. All those are compulsory requirements.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend has managed to compile a list that is wrong in every respect. A cyclist hanging on to the back of a vehicle is interfering with the safety of other people in a


material way. It is not a matter of injury to himself. That is his business, but he can endanger other people.

Mr. Jessel: Which other people?

Mr. Bell: Other people on the road. A bicycle swerving into the road because the cyclist has lost his balance can be extremely dangerous.
The point about the factory legislation was dealt with on Second Reading. People subject to the penalties of the factories legislation are the employers and occupiers of the factory, not the individual who is struck. One does not mind the makers of electric fires being compelled to fit guards. That is different. What I am objecting to is an individual being forced to take precautions for his own safety—and exclusively for his own safety—because some fussy people think they want to run his life for him and safeguard him against his own folly. I beg to be left to the consequences of my own folly in this and all other matters.
In moving the new clause I am seeking to say why this measure should be renewable annually, and it is only to that extent that I point out the novelty of this encroachment upon the proper freedom of the individual in this country. That freedom is a matter to which I attach great importance.
We are weakening our society by looking after people too much and taking precautions for them in all sorts of ways. We are accumulating a sort of "coroner's jury's rider society" in which every time something bad happens, somebody says "Somebody ought to do something about it". Something is done, and the whole thing builds up until there is a rule book either for society as a whole or for particular occupations or sections of society. We end with a rule book which, by this gross accumulation, becomes a caricature of the law.
It has reached the point where working to rule is a form of industrial obstruction, because all these rules, like the Bill, are based on the interests of personal safety, and because they accumulate the thing becomes impossible and anyone who keeps them is guilty of malpractice. That is the absurd state at which we have arrived.
That being so, I propose to the House that we should have this provision—if we

are to have it at all—for one year from Royal Assent, and we should then assess the position in the light of the sort of thing that I have been saying—the accumulation of restrictions upon personal freedom that is so debilitating to the individual, and through him to society. If it be the case that at the end of a year the House wants to renew the Bill for another year, be it so. The machinery will be there. We shall not have to go through the whole legislative process again. It will be possible to renew the measure by a simple resolution of each House. But if either House should, in the light of a year's experience, take the view that this has been a tiresome encroachment—and that could still be found to be the case—the Bill may lapse.
2.0 p.m.
Is not enforcing this prescription likely to be a tiresome requirement? Can one imagine motorists being stopped by a sort of maiden aunt policeman who says "You are not wearing your seat belt?" Gracious me ! We are the children of a great imperial Power that subjugated a quarter of the world, yet we are to be stopped by a policeman and told that we should be wearing our safety belts. We shall be told that we are not wearing our bibs next ! This is footling legislation.
The Government say that this is safety legislation, but in political terms the most worthless concept is equality and the next most worthless concept is safety. This country is becoming obsessed with safety. We are becoming not just a second-rate nation, but a third- or fourth-rate nation because we are obsessed with safety—the second most worthless quality in the political vocabulary. It is just not worthy of this country in its more splendid days.
Our Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related to the new clause because they suggest that after the passing of the Bill, if it does pass, there should be a period of one month, as I have suggested, or two months, as my hon. Friends have suggested, before the Bill actually comes into force. The way in which we are approaching this has already been tried in Australia. If we are to learn from Australian experience, as the Minister of Transport has said, maybe first he should learn that Australians drive on the same side of the road as we do.
The Australians had a period of non-enforcement when the police stopped people and warned them that they were not wearing their seat belts and there was now a law on this matter. So the element of compulsion was faded in gradually over a period of about one month.
My amendment is not quite the same as the Australian practice because I am proposing that after the Royal Assent the Act should not come into force until a day prescribed by the Secretary of State, which shall be not less than one month after Royal Assent. That is common practice in other legislation. We often pass Bills and say that the day on which they shall come into force shall be prescribed by Order. In this case, the purpose of having a prescribed date is to give a period after the passing of the Act during which people can become accustomed progressively to the thought that they will be prosecuted if they do not wear a seat belt. Psychologically it is better if the Bill is actually in force and the police do not enforce it for a month, but generally speaking we do not do things in this way in this country.
The Minister has circulated to us some documents giving some outlines of his concluding paragraph of the Minister's intention to make regulations. The memorandum says that he believes in a combination of tight rules and flexible enforcement. That is rather an odd phrase—"Tight rules and flexible enforcement". It is particularly so as in the last debate the Minister resisted the affirmative procedure. It is not the traditional British practice to pass a law and allow its application to be a matter of administrative discretion. This is not a good change and we should not add explicitly to the occasions on which it is done.
We have too many laws. Too much prescription is going into too many aspects of our lives. In one sense this is mitigated by lax enforcement, but in another sense it is encouraged. It is the very laxity and irregularity of enforcement that prevent the citizen from actively rebelling against this prescription.
The two are linked. We all break the law every day. My hon. Friend quoted the instance of the 50 mph speed limit, but the 30 mph speed limit is broken

more often by everyone. One only has to go out into Whitehall and in five minutes one will see at least 100 vehicles breaking the speed limit, and no one does anything about it.
When these matters were debated in another place some years ago, the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Goddard, commented that he had realised how often the law was broken when he was driven by his chauffeur to the Law Courts every day. He drove past Buckingham Palace and down the Mall where the speed limit is 20 m.p.h. This chauffeur drove every morning at 30 m.p.h., which was 50 per cent. above the speed limit, yet he was still passed by every car on the road.
There is the Lord Chief Justice of England telling the Upper House of Parliament that he or his chauffeur breaks the speed limit every morning, yet everyone else is doing it more. This is relevant to my argument. This unreal prescription is made acceptable by "a nod and a wink" in enforcement which in fact brings the law into contempt.
That is what the Minister of Transport said in the document he circulated to us for the purpose of this debate. That is the sort of thing he is going in for. It is very bad indeed. It is this experiment in minute and closely applied prescriptions to the personal practice of habits of the individual subject that we should think about again after a year. From the moment the law is passed, we should have an opportunity to get used to it by establishing a penumbral period, as suggested in Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will give this proposal some thought. The trouble with these debates is that the Under-Secretary has been given his instructions. He cannot take any notice of what I say, because he has been told by the Minister what line to take. The Minister is no doubt taking refreshment at the moment, and that is reasonable. I have probably won the heart and swayed the mind of the Under-Secretary, but it avails me nothing. He has his Whip sitting beside him to see that in the Minister's absence he does not do anything he should not do. I almost feel that we should come back a year after Royal Assent in the hope that more


Labour Members will be present and we can thoroughly argue that subject.
I cannot help the absence of authority from the mind of the Under-Secretary. I can only hope that he is more of a lion than a mouse and that he will tell the Minister, when the latter returns, that he has been entirely persuaded by what has been said and that he advises him to accept these proposals. If not, we shall want some good reasons why not. Unless I get some good reasons, I shall ask my hon. Friends, who are present in reasonable numbers, to support me in the Lobby.

Mr. Mather: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is right to distinguish between New Clause 2 and Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. New Clause 2 makes the Act renewable annually, but the amendments would allow a period of grace before the Bill comes into effect. I should therefore like to move Amendment No. 11.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know what my hon. Friend is doing, but I think that I am right in saying that he cannot at the moment formally move the amendment, although we are debating it and I imagine that he will be allowed to move it later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The correct procedure, if the amendment is selected for a Division, is that it be moved after the new clause has received its Second Reading, if it should do so.

Mr. Mather: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's ever-ready advice. I am pleased that he is here to correct me from time to time.

Sir John Langford-Holt: My hon. Friend said that the amendment proposes that the Act should be renewed annually. But the new clause says:
This Act shall expire at the end of one year after its entry".
The Act will enter only once, so it will come under review one year after it has come into effect, but not annually thereafter.

Mr. Mather: I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is the best person to answer that. I am primarily concerned not with New Clause 2 but with Amendment No. 11,

which seeks to delay implementation of the Bill following Royal Assent by two months.
This is supposed to be a helpful amendment to enable the Government to introduce the measure in an orderly and acceptable way. The Government will have to mount a considerable publicity campaign to alert people to their obligations and it would not be right to do so before the Bill received Royal Assent. So that campaign must commence on a later date and the delay will give the Government the necessary time to alert and educate the public.
This will also be of considerable help to the police because it will enable them during the run-up period to stop and caution motorists who are not wearing their seat belts and to give some warning to drivers of when the law will come into force. It would be a courtesy campaign. I favour two months rather than one because people who are on holiday might not have time to assimilate what is going on. One month would give barely enough time to enable them to inform themselves of the law. There may be other, more practical, things to do, like repairing defective seat belts.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Bell: One of the charming peculiarities of the document circulated to us is that it says that if a seat belt is out of order one need not wear it. Perhaps what my hon. Friend means is that these people will want to wreck their seat belts so they need not wear them.

Mr. Mather: I have also noticed that statement in the document but I think that the unfortunate motorist in that position will be caught under some other provision. One cannot therefore advise the use of defective seat belts. A seat belt in my car is in a grotty state, having been trapped in the door several times. This raises the whole question of what is an effective seat belt. Many motorists will spend a great deal of time examining their seat belts, deciding whether they are any good and probably fitting more modern ones. If the Bill becomes law I shall consider fitting an inertia belt in my car as opposed to an ordinary fixed belt. A considerable load will be imposed on garages and local mechanics who fit seat belts so I should have thought that there was every advantage


in a short delay before the Bill became law.
This is strongly borne out by one of the documents which the Government have given us—rather late in the day. I received mine only this morning. It makes some comparisons with other countries. We pressed for these comparisons in Committee. We were told that such a law had been successful in many other countries but we had not had the evidence.
The document is headed
Compulsory Wearing of Scat Belts: Practice in Other Countries.
In paragraph 4 it says that in most Australian States a month was allowed after the introduction of the law when only cautions were given. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said that he believed that a month was allowed, and that is confirmed here. Presumably the purpose of this document is to show how it is done in other countries. Therefore, it might be wise for the Government to follow this example from the practice in Australia, where a month's delay was given before the law was introduced.
It is axiomatic that if the Bill were to be renewed each year there would have to be an annual report for hon. Members to be able to assess its effects. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Speaker has not selected New Clause 3, which deals with the question of an annual report, but I am sure that you would feel that it was in order to touch upon the matter briefly, because my hon. and learned Friend's new clause could not work without that provision. In any case, whether or not my hon. and learned Friend's clause were carried, a report would greatly assist enforcement of the law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am possibly being over-indulgent in allowing the hon. Gentleman to mention New Clause 3 at all. He suggested that he would refer to it briefly. I should agree to that, but he should not make a large proportion of his speech on a clause which has not been selected.

Mr. Mather: Perhaps it would be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I did not actually mention New Clause 3 but touched on the problem of how my hon.

and learned Friend's new clause could operate if we did not have some information to go on.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Am I not right in thinking that the Minister recognised that problem and said that he would make some sort of report annually on how the matter was working out? I had that in mind in framing my new clause, because without some such report it would be difficult. Was not something said about that?

Mr. Mather: There was indeed. I look it up before today's proceedings began. If I remember rightly, the Minister said that he did not think it necessary to produce an annual report but that he would consider a report of some kind. I think at the end of two years. It was not an undertaking to give an annual report.
It is necessary to have an assessment of how the introduction of the law is going and how the police can cope with enforcement of it on top of all the other regulations that they already have to enforce, which are becoming a great burden on them. I have here a large book from a particular county constabulary. The Minister can see from its size the number of regulations a police constable must master before he can do his job properly. This side of the matter will not be easy. Therefore, I urge the hon. Gentleman to accept our moderate amendment, which can only assist him.

Mr. Moate: In an earlier debate I urged that there should be the greatest possible parliamentary scrutiny of subsequent regulations and the operation of the Bill. My enthusiasm for that does not extend to allowing my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation once a year and exercise his personal influence over it. I cannot help thinking that such a scrutiny would not be constructive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The answer to the question whether there is a constructive or destructive approach to this legislation has already been made amply clear by my hon. and learned Friend, whose purposes are honourably and openly destructive.

Mr. Ronald Bell: "Obstructive" would perhaps be a better word.

Mr. Moate: I suspect that obstruction has a destructive purpose, though a quite honourable purpose in the context of argument in this House.
It would be inconsistent for those of us who have argued that this legislation should be on the statute book to suggest that it should have a life of only one year, with a possible extension of another year. Nevertheless, my hon. and learned Friend raises one important point, that there should be an opportunity later to review it, even if only with a view to making it more effective. My hon. and learned Friend may have had that in mind.
We can learn from the French experience. When the French introduced their legislation about three years ago the wearing rate as a result was initially very high—up to 80 per cent. But because of the lack of enforcement procedures it rapidly dropped to 50 per cent. It would be regrettable if that happened here. It would undermine the object of the legislation. It became necessary for the French to tighten up their enforcement procedures, and the wearing rate then rose to 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. Perhaps when he urged that we should re-examine the legislation next year my hon. and learned Friend had in mind ensuring that it was being properly enforced and had encouraged a high wearing rate.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything.

Mr. Moate: My main object in speaking now is to support Amendment No. 11, which urges that in effect there should be a two-month waiting period between the Act's coming into force and the time when penalties are applied. That is an important and constructive suggestion which I hope that the Government will accept.
In Committee I moved an amendment calling for a six-month waiting period, or running-in period as I then described it. On reflection, I think that six months is far too long, but the one month proposed in Amendment No. 10 is too short. It does not give much time for advertising on television and for the adjustment of seats and seat belts. It does not give enough time for the public to be made aware of the impact of this legislation and their need to conform to it.
A two-month period is just about right. If the Government used the two months profitably, with a sort of courtesy campaign during which the public would receive courtesy warnings about the impending legislation, that would help to gain public acceptance of the legislation and would consequently increase the wearing rate.

Dr. Glyn: Most garages are very busy and in some parts of the country it is not easy to have seat belts fitted. Therefore, an interim period is necessary. Does my hon. Friend think that two months is long enough for reasonable people to have their seat belts fitted?

Mr. Moate: I suspect that the vast majority of people already have seat belts compulsorily fitted by law. Some people may need to have them adjusted, and that can be done fairly conveniently within the time scale we are talking about. They could be adjusted in time even without the amendment, because there is bound to be an interval between the passing of the legislation and the coming into effect of the regulations. But the amendment would be a helpful method by which the Government could encourage maximum public good will and the maximum wearing rate. I hope that they will accept the proposal.

Mr. Jessel: I oppose the clause because I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is trying to weaken the basic effect of the Bill, which is to achieve a high wearing rate of seat belts compulsorily.
On Second Reading on 1st March, the House gave a clear and definite decision in favour of the principle of compulsory wearing of seat belts. That happened on a free vote, with nearly 400 hon. Members voting, by a majority of two to one. Eighty Opposition Members voted in favour.
The experience in other countries where the wearing of seat belts has been made compulsory is that the wearing rate goes up from about 30 per cent. to 80 per cent. I believe that a decision to review the legislation after a year would be taken by the public as a sign of weakening of resolve or half-heartedness. That would probably result in a lower wearing rate in the intervening year. This would mean that there would be a larger


number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads.
The statistics were broadly accepted, although they may have been questioned in detail. According to the figures given on Second Reading, of the 6,000 fatal casualties per year on roads in this country, approximately 1,000—one-sixth—would be saved by the compulsory wearing of seat belts, on the assumption that the number of people wearing them in cars would roughly treble, and 10,000 or 11,000 serious injuries would be prevented.
2.30 p.m.
If as a result of the proposed clause the wearing rate went up to, say, 70 per cent. rather than 80 per cent. in the immediate future following the enactment of the legislation, over a full year perhaps an additional 150 to 200 people would die and an additional 1,000 or 2,000 people would be severely injured. The House would then have to take the responsibility and take the necessary action, because a sane man must be presumed to be responsible for the consequences of his actions.
I hope the House will see the clause for what it is. It is an attempt to weaken the effectiveness of the Bill, and I hope that we shall reject it decisively.

Mr. Carlisle: I had not intended to speak on this new clause as I did not hear what I am sure was an eloquent speech in support of it delivered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I am drawn to my feet by the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). We have been told time and time again by the supporters of the Bill that it will save 1,000 lives a year.
We have been told so again by my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham and for Faversham. If they are so certain that it will save 1,000 lives a year why are they nervous of Parliament having the opportunity to look at it after a period of 12 months? If I am persuaded that the Bill will succeed in doing what is claimed for it, I shall reconsider my own position. But those who have taken an active interest in this legislation

have all agreed that it is really an argument about how far one can go in interferring with the individual's right to use his own judgment to preserve himself. That must be dependent upon what is the real risk.
What are the supporters of the Bill worried about if, in a year's time, we can come back here and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham is able to say to me "I told you so. Road deaths have come down enormously as a result of this legislation and the wearing of seat belts. Therefore, you must withdraw your objection? "I am sure that even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, although true to his principles throughout, would reconsider his position if that sort of evidence were available. I get the impression that the fact that the supporters of the Bill are so adamant means that they cannot be so sure that the implementation of the Bill would save 1,000 lives a year as they say it would.

Mr. Moate: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that if it can be shown that this rate of life saving can be achieved by the Bill, he will alter his views about it?

Mr. Carlisle: I am being invited to make the speech that I made on Second Reading. I believe that there is a limitation to the criminal law. I said on Second Reading that I accept that there are circumstances in which Parliament is entitled to legislate to extend the barriers of the criminal law if it can be shown totally that this is necessary for a substantial saving of life, even if it interferes with individual judgment. I am saying that with this Bill that is not the situation. So long as there are people who maintain that they believe that they can save their lives or themselves from serious injury by not wearing seat belts, even though the statistics may be against them, it is wrong for Parliament to say "We shall make it a criminal offence if you do not do what we say you should do, even though your judgment tells you not to do so."
Of course, I would look at the statistics If the figures showed a major reduction in accidents and if I could be persuaded that this was due to the compulsion in the Bill that requires the wearing of seat belts, and that that is what caused


that major reduction, obviously I should have to reconsider my objection to the Bill. I am surprised that the supporters of the Bill, admirable and sincere as they are, should want to deny Parliament the opportunity to look at this measure in a year's time, which is all the clause requires.
I should like to know whether my hon. and learned Friend is right when he says that the effect of the amendment is to allow a period of two months to elapse between the Bill coming into force and people being prosecuted. As I understand the position, it is nothing like that. We want a gap between the time when the regulations are laid before Parliament and the time when they come into force. So far as I am concerned, the Bill may come into force tomorrow. What we want to know is when the regulations are to be laid. The regulations should not be laid until there has been plenty of publicity, whatever one's view of the proposal.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) argues alone on the ground that he thinks that 1,000 out of 6,000 road deaths will be saved by the Bill becoming law. I believe that there are other considerations. I remember our debates on capital punishment when I think that there was a clear indication that the murder rate increased with its abolition.

Mr. Jessel: What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Ridley: I shall tell my hon. Friend. That did not in any sense cause the supporters of the abolition of capital punishment to change their view that there were strong grounds for abolishing capital punishment. If my hon. Friend's point were taken to its logical conclusion, he would be supporting a Bill making it illegal to put an engine into a motor car because without an engine 6,000 lives would be saved.

Mr. Jessel: That is not logical.

Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend's argument logical? We are talking about the public acceptance of a degree of restriction of freedom and of inconvenience, balanced on the other hand by the chances of saving life. I utterly reject, incidentally, the argument of the hon. Member

for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that fewer accidents on the roads would be an economy to the National Health Service as a sort of bogus way of saving expenditure by keeping the casualties out of our hospitals. I find that a repulsive argument. The Government insisted that the health service should be free. If they felt that people should pay for the consequences of their intemperance or folly on the roads, that would be one thing, but to use the sort of argument advanced by the hon. Member for Swansea, East as an argument in favour of the Bill I can never believe to be right.
The Bill will become quite unpopular when it is first brought into effect. It is not only the inconvenience of always having to wear a seat belt that will make it unpopular. There is the prospect of policemen looking in every car window, stopping those who have not got their seat belts fastened and taking them to court, and then those nasty brown envelopes arriving from the court with peremptory wording about the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. That will be a cause of irritation.
Admirable and excellent though our police are in all matters to do with serious crime, on the motorways they are becoming overbearing, too numerous and too arrogant. I do not like those little places that are being built every few miles at public expense for the police to spy on us. I do not like the new motor cycle police and the way in which they officiously drive up and down our roads far in excess of the speed limit without doing any good and frightening the public.
There has been a distinct change for the worse in the attitude of the road police in the past few years. I hope that they will realise that most citizens travelling in cars are trying to earn a living and to get on with their legitimate business. They should not be treated as potential criminals because they are rash enough to go on to the public road or motorway.
The Bill will make worse the relationship between the motorist and the motoring police and for that reason I want to see the matter reconsidered after one year. We could then see the new figures for road deaths. We should also have the temperature of the public, which is


vital before we decide whether to proceed with the legislation on a permanent basis.
A sentence in the consultative document alarms me. Under the heading "Emergency services", it says:
There are likely to be certain occasions when it will be inadvisable for the officers of the police and fire services, when responding to an emergency, to put on scat belts. Such officers will therefore be exempt where the use of a seat belt would interfere with their performance of their duty.
That sounds reasonable enough, but I wonder how many policemen will wear seat belts. They will always be able to ride out on the claim that it will interfere with the performance of their duty. It will be an added irritation to the motorist when he has to wear a scat belt when the policeman never seems to.
The irritation is also symbolised by the large blue flashing lights which all of those in authority have on their cars. All kinds of people in their motoring lives are able to use such lights. Even the county surveyor is allowed to have a light on the top of his car, and I suppose that Ministers will soon have flashing lights on their cars. That smacks of the increase in the privilege of authority. The whole build-up is in that direction. Because certain people are in authority, they will be excused the tiresome business of wearing seat belts.
If we are to maintain the relations between the motorist and the police, it will be as well to consider the reaction in a year or two. I am worried that we might find a general lack of co-operation and a general distrust developing between the two.
We might also be engaging in excessive public expenditure on our policemen on the roads and motorways. The Conservative Party has been asked where it would cut public expenditure. We are spending large sums of money on Range-Rovers and Jaguars for police to ride on motorways. We could economise on the excessive standard of enforcement on our roads.
2.45 p.m.
I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) in his plea for the matter to be considered again. Legislation often finds itself on the statute book and remains there

simply because no opportunity is presented for us to take it off again. There are all sorts of examples of laws which were either temporary or introduced for some other purpose which remain on the statute book out of inertia or lack of opportunity.
For example, the parking meters and traffic wardens were introduced to enable enough money to be raised to fill London with car parks so that there would be plenty of parking space in the city. But not one car park has been built and parking meters are being taken away. The law in that case is being used for a purpose contrary to that for which it was passed.
The Government hate the private motorist and their private cars. They do everything they can to tax, and cause harassment and hardship to the private car driver. I thought that they were shrewd and know where their interests lay. Maybe there were some car drivers in Rotherham who were influenced by the Government's hate of the private car owner.
It would be wise and prudent to give the House another chance to look at the Bill and to consider whether relations between the police and the motorist are still satisfactory and whether the burdens and difficulties of those who are forced to use motor cars for business are such that they are becoming too onerous. We should consider the exact effect that the legislation has on safety and on the numbers killed and injured so that we can reconsider the proposal. That is what happened when we abolished capital punishment. A further opportunity was provided to see what was the effect. No one wants to take up a position on what they might think one year after the regulations have been enforced.
It would be overcertain for the Minister to say now that he is sure that in a year's time there will be no question of anyone wanting to reconsider the imposition of this law. That would be straining credulity too far. The House must be careful. It has passed so many laws that citizens are not ony highly suspicious but highly resentful of the ever-increasing productivity of this place. It is our duty to make provision to look again in a year's time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): There will be an opportunity to debate the emergency services on a later amendment. I deny the accusation by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that the Government are against the car driver and owner. Hon. Members on both sides are anxious to see the Bill passed because it will protect the car owner, his passengers and his family. I am sure that no hon. Members would agree with the assertion that we should tell our great empire race to live dangerously.
The message to motorists, pedestrians and cyclists of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is that if this legislation were passed, it would be a disaster. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has a printed slip that he uses when he receives letters from constituents about the need for a new bypass to protect them or for improvements on a road, perhaps by the installation of a pedestrian crossing, or speed limits, or whatever it may be, saying "Live dangerously".
This Bill was brought forward because of the probability that it would save many lives and many serious injuries. It is nonsense to suggest that we should live dangerously at a time when more than 6,000 people are killed on our roads every year and when over 60,000 people are seriously injured. The wearing of seat belts not only affects persons covered by this legislation, but we must remember that a person who is not wearing a seat belt and who is involved in an accident will not be in a position to control his vehicle to avoid a further collision. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield recognises that point in a later amendment. He does not include a phrase in those later amendments saying "This is purely for the safety of the individual". He realises that this is a prime factor because it is the crux of the matter. In other words, it means that if a person is wearing a seat belt, he is more likely to be able to control his vehicle after an accident.

Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport have stressed the argument relating to the number of deaths and accidents of one kind or another that will result if the Bill is

delayed. Has he any figures to show how many people now wear seat belts?

Mr. Marks: These matters were dealt with fully on Second Reading and figures were produced both in the House and outside.

Mr. Fell: Then surely the hon. Gentleman can give those figures to the House.

Mr. Marks: Yes, I can give the figures. Approximately 30 per cent. of drivers and passengers wear seat belts. Our estimate is that, with compulsion, this figure would reach 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. That is based on the experience in other countries.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Since the hon. Gentleman referred to me, I wish to make a brief intervention merely to point out that I do not hold the views that he has attributed to me. Because I have a subsequent amendment on this topic, I shall then take the opportunity of expressing my views more fully.

Mr. Marks: Let me say how delighted I am to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not telling the people of this country to live dangerously in respect of use of the roads. I have heard him both in the House and on television say things of that sort, and that is what I was getting at.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) mentioned the large number of regulations now in existence and waved a book of them as being those which the police have to enforce. I must point out that the vast number of those regulations, particularly those relating to traffic, were introduced by a Conservative Government via the negative procedure.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) summed up the reason for the clause by saying that his hon. Friends were trying to reduce the effects of the Bill. He suggested that its opponents were taking the view that we need not worry too much about seat belts because the whole thing could be thrown out next year if we were to have a new Government.
Annual renewal would be desirable only if there were a possibility that the seat belt powers would be a source of serious and continuing problems and controversy, such that they must be kept under virtually continuous review. If


there were a large increase in the number of casualties as a result of the Bill and there were a need for urgent legislation, the Government would recognise that fact. But that is not likely to be the case. Whether the provisions are generally obeyed and thereby save thousands of unnecessary injuries, or fail because of widespread non-compliance, after a year or two they will cease to be of general interest to Parliament or the public. Failure would be deeply regrettable in human terms, but would not be an event that would make new legislation imperative.
My right hon. Friend the Minister gave an undertaking in the Sixth Sitting of the Standing Committee—column 272—to make a written report to Parliament covering the first year of operation of the regulations and again in respect of the second year. Whatever party was in power, I am sure that action would be taken far sooner if serious and fundamental problems were to arise following the introduction of regulations.
We believe that the new clause is defective. As for the two amendments that are associated with it, I appreciate the obvious sincerity of hon. Members in tabling such provisions relating to delay after the Royal Assent. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out that there would be a delay after Royal Assent.
I can give an undertaking that consultations will not be rushed. Although publication this week of the draft consultation letter should help interested organisations to formulate their views in advance of the Royal Assent, it would be appropriate to allow the usual period of three months to receive and consider representations to ensure so far as possible that no case for exemption is overlooked.
After the regulations have been made, we intend to give wide publicity to the legislation and the exemptions. I hope that with that assurance, hon. Gentlement will be satisfied with the situation.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am sorry that I was not here for the earlier part of the debate, but I was detained elsewhere. I am concerned about the situation of some of my constituents who

are physically incapable of wearing seat belts. Indeed, such a practice may well cause them considerable pain and might well endanger their lives. Could the Minister give some idea whether exemptions will be made in those circumstances, so that those people will not break the law because they are not wearing seat belts?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Not on this clause.

Mr. Marks: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman by saying that we shall be making exemptions and that there will be certification in this respect.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Body: The Minister is usually very persuasive, but he fell below his normal standard in his reply and did not persuade me that there was anything defective in the new clause. I was also sorry that he rebuked my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) in such unfortunate language and claimed that my hon. and learned Friend wanted us to live dangerously and recklessly on the roads. My hon. and learned Friend was merely suggesting that we should not be so obsessed with safety in this House.
I think that the Minister will agree that this is one more encroachment into personal liberty. Once the Bill gets on the statute book, it will be almost impossible to get it off again. Ministers are loth to strip themselves of statutory powers acquired by their predecessors. Indeed, I can think of no occasion in recent history when that has happened.
An average of 50 Bills averaging 20 pages in length—are passed by the House every year. About 1,000 pages of statute law are thus added every year. We have to add several thousand pages of Statutory Instruments and several thousand more pages of the so-called secondary legislation which emanates from Brussels and is law directly applicable to this country. For sheer weight of verbiage, there is no branch of the human race more burdened with legislation than the British people.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on practically every other subject, so I am sorry that he is one of those who believe that the British people should have another


burden imposed on them. Those who persist in advocating legislation to prevent us from hurting ourselves or other people should ask what characteristics and perversities the British people have that make it necessary for them to become the most over-legislated people of all 130 self-governing nations in the world.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend would probably agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that we should abolish vast amounts of our law and happily exchange much of the excessive burden to which he has referred for this one beneficial piece of legislation.

Mr. Body: I should be tempted to dismiss from the statute book several hundred pages of thoroughly bad law introduced in recent years—especially the agree with my hon. Friend if he could regulations emanating from across the water.
The case for the new clause has been argued admirably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. We need a mechanism to check this flood of legislation. If the legislation is seen to be desirable and effective, only a simple resolution would be required to enable it to continue as the law of the land. But unless we have such a mechanism, people will become disrespectful and disdainful of the gathering mass of legislation, and that would be a very sad day for this country.

Dr. Glyn: I support the new clause. There is a case for seeing at the end of the year the reaction of the police and the public. We should know how the public feel about this further interference with their liberty. At the moment, people have a right to wear a seat belt. We want to know their reaction to being compelled to wear a belt. There is also the possibility that this legislation might be extended—to rear seats, for example. I cannot see why the Government should object to the new clause. It would give people the chance to see how the legislation works. Further, the Government would have the opportunity to reframe the legislation as necesary.
We did not get the affirmative procedure which we sought earlier. This amendment will give us the chance to change the situation at the end of a year If this measure goes on to the statute

book, let it be for a year and then let us see how well the police are able to operate it. Let us see what the public reaction is to enforcement of this measure. The police have a difficult job to do. This is placing a burden upon them which might lead to a deterioration in relations between them and the public, who might regard the measure as an unwaranted interference with their freedom.

Mr. Burden: I apologise for not being present earlier. I find it difficult to support this new clause. It seems that if, at the end of a year, there were clear evidence that seat belt wearing could not be properly enforced, or that it increased the number of accidents, any sensible Government would wish to review the situation. I find it difficult to believe that the evidence could be accumulated in a sufficiently precise form over that period.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend is not following my line of thought. What are we to do when we do not have a sensible Government?

Mr. Burden: Although we may not have a very sensible Government at the moment it is possible that we may be in power soon and there would then be a sensible Government which would have to reach a decision. All Governments are sensible on some things. It is difficult to say that any Government will not do some things that are wise and sensible.
I heard the argument put forward earlier that it should be up to an individual to decide whether to hurt himself or other people or, indeed, to kill himself or other people. I find that a difficult piece of logic to follow. If it is thought that a person is endangering the safety or health of another person through his actions, it is right to impose some restrictions. If, in the present stretched financial situation, when our health services are under great strain, we feel that this measure will bring about a fall in the number of injuries and hospital cases, it will be wise to introduce it. Car accidents can also involve innocent bystanders. I find, therefore, that I cannot agree with the new clause.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend is advancing an interesting principle. How far would be push the principle that if a


person does something to himself he should be punished in a court?

Mr. Burden: I do not push it to the extent of saying that because cars can cause injury and death they should be banned. It is sensible to impose some restrictions. We already have speed limits, which are meant to save lives. If this measure will also prevent injuries and save lives, it would be sensible to enact it.
Two points concern me. First, I hope that the Police Federation has been consulted about how to enforce the measure. Unless there are very substantial fines, and a major effort by the police to enforce the wearing of seat belts, many people will not wear seat belts.
Secondly, most vehicles will be moving at the time that the police would have to consider whether a person was wearing a seat belt and whether that person should be subject to prosecution. How would the police be able to tell, other than by driving up alongside and looking into the vehicle? What does the Police Federation think about this and about the problems of enforcement?
People who by reason of physical disability cannot wear seat belts, ought to be able to go to a general practitioner and obtain a certificate to that effect. It should be sufficient for such people to obtain a certificate to that effect. It would also be useful for them to have some indication which could be fixed to the windscreen, to that they would not be stopped unnecessarily by the police.

Mr. Marks: The Government are proposing to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman suggests, although not in relation to the windscreen. That aspect is coming up for debate later. But medical exemption and certification is the Government's aim. The regulations will be concerned with exemption rather than compulsion. That is what the regulations are about.

Mr. Burden: I am most grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I support the new clause, wearing my hat as the President of the National Association of Driving Instructors, but I shall be interested to see what answer the Minister will give to the next amendment, concerning exemptions.
As I understand the position, the Minister is not at present minded to give an exemption to driving instructors where dual controls are available and inertia reel belts are fitted. In due course, if given the opportunity, I shall attempt to persuade the Minister otherwise. If I should be unsuccessful, driving instructors will face the question whether it is conducive to safety to have inertia reel safety belts fitted, as this will oblige people to conform to the regulations, since they do not come within the exemptions.
The National Association of Driving Instructors is unhappy at the position concerning inertia reel seat belts. It considers that the movement of any instructor wearing them is very restricted. A member of the Association has written to me stating:
I use these myself on tuition and it is impossible to reach over for the starter switch when an emergency situation caused by an engine stall arises.
If driving instructors are not to be made an exemption where duel controls and inertia reels are flitted, they at least want some assurance that there will be an improvement in the efficiency of inertia reel seat belts. As they apply at present, they do not consider them to be efficient enough. It may be that, after a year of research and development, an efficient system will be devised to which the driving instructors have no objection. But, until that arises, they oppose the failure to exempt them. That being so, it seems to me that Parliament should have an opportunity in a year to reconsider this matter so that the driving instructors have an opportunity through me, or through other hon. Members who represent constituencies where they are a force to be reckoned with, of again trying to persuade the Minister to make exemptions in their regard.
3.15 p.m.
It is for that reason, which is a reason of special pleading but nevertheless a reason of special importance, that I support the new clause. The safety of our future drivers on the roads depends on the excellence of the tuition which they receive and that, in turn, depends very much on the freedom of driving instructors to teach according to their own very high standards. Their wishes in this matter should not be disregarded.
If the Minister is still disinclined to make exemptions in this sort of situation, I ask him seriously to reconsider his opposition to this very fine new clause which I support, I must confess, for all sorts of reasons other than those that I have just advanced and which I do not

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

COMPULSORY WEARING OF SEAT BELTS

Mr. Fry: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 17, at end insert:
'(c) notwithstanding the generality of paragraph (b) shall prescribe that exception be made on such medical grounds as may be prescribed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 1, line 17, at end insert:
'(c) notwithstanding the generality of paragraph (b) shall prescribe that exception be made for such categories of occupation as may be prescribed'.
No. 3, in page 1, line 17, at end insert:
'(c) notwithstanding the generality of paragraph (b) shall prescribe that exception be made for such emergency situations as may be prescribed'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 17, at end insert:
'(c) notwithstanding the generality of paragraph (b) shall prescribe that exception be made for such categories of children as may be prescribed'.

wish to take up the time of the House by repeating.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 47.

Division No. 199.]
AYES
[3.20 p.m.


Banks, Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Viggers, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Langford-Holt, Sir John



Brotherton, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Mr. Richard Body and


Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Mr. Ronald Bell.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neubert, Michael





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Dykes, Hugh
Moate, Roger


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Park, George


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bates, Alf
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Sandelson, Neville


Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Snape, Peter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Stallard, A. W.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Stoddart, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Jessel, Toby
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Tinn, James


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Weitzman, David


Coleman, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Wiggin, Jerry


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Deakins, Eric
Luard, Evan



Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. John Ellis.

Mr. Fry: We are starting to discuss a series of amendments which are very important indeed, because I think that, by general agreement, it is the exemptions that will appear in the regulations which are in effect the very meat of the Bill. The difficulty for the House, as indeed it was for the Committee, is that even with the various documents which the Minister has been kind enough to circulate to us, we still await in exact form the kind of regulations that are to be brought into force. It has been a constant worry to some Opposition Members that the Bill did not contain these regulations when it was first drafted. It is all very well to compliment oneself and to say that the Government have carefully drawn up a one-clause Bill. As I think was demonstrated in Committee, far from this being a matter of very short debate, as the Minister has already acknowledged, we had a full 15 hours of debate. Much of that 15 hours was devoted to the subject of the exemptions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and I deliberately did not want to go over the


same old ground again. However, in view of the tremendous number of representations that we and many of our other colleagues have received on this subject, and because of the high feeling that exists in the community at large, we could not pass the Report stage without bringing up this subject again. Therefore, in order to be helpful to the Government, we thought that it would be a good idea to put down the amendments in these various groupings. It is perhaps coincidental that in the draft consultation letter which finally saw the light of day yesterday, the Government themselves have produced various categories.
I deal with Amendment No. 1. It is rather interesting that Item A of the draft consultation letter concerns itself with the medical exemptions. I would be very grateful if the Minister would clear up the point as to how far the current negotiations or discussions with the BMA have gone. In Committee we had a lengthy and interesting discussion on the cost of certificates that would be provided for people exempt on medical grounds. The Under-Secretary of State quoted a figure of 75p, but I am sure many hon. Members must be aware that when one goes to a doctor to obtain what is virtually a private medical certificate, rarely does one get one for 75p. If it is a question of having a medical examination, the cost of that has to be borne in mind. Is it the intention that the cost of that examination shall be borne by the person applying for the certificate, or will it be borne by the National Health Service and therefore be a charge on the general taxpayer?

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We should bear in mind elderly people and those on low incomes who might have to use their cars for a specific purpose. In those cases the certificates should be provided free, otherwise considerable hardship could result. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what has been said by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I go further. It is not just a question of pensioners. What about somebody in receipt of immobility allowance? Is it intended that

the certificate should be paid for out of that allowance, or will extra provision be made for that? What about someone in receipt of supplementary benefit? Who will pay for the certificate in that instance? I fail to see how it can be put out that there will be no charge on the general taxpayer resulting from the issue of these certificates, because if an examination is necessary that will take time, and a doctor's time is precious.
That leaves open the whole question of people who might need an examination on what one might call nervous medical grounds—people who feel that if they have a seat belt fitted they will suffer from claustrophobia. I imagine that a medical investigation will be necessary to decide whether someone is entitled to a medical certificate on that ground, and that could be costly. It might be necessary to refer a patient to a consultant—or perhaps two consultants—to obtain the right decision. Just to pass the decision to the medical authorities to decide who does and who does not qualify for a certificate begs the question, because the resources of the National Health Service are stretched, and the Bill would appear to be putting one more load upon it.

Dr. Glyn: There seem to be two elements here. The first is the examination of a patient, which could be costly. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Bill means that it is the mere issue of a certificate that attracts a fee of 75p—in other words, that the patient pays 75p for the certificate and the taxpayer pays for the examination through the National Health Service?

Mr. Fry: As I understand it, that is the case. A reference to the consultative letter shows that the period of validity of the certificate will be a matter for the doctor to decide having regard to the nature and prognosis of the medical condition. How long that period will be will be up to the doctor. I submit that the cost of the examination must, of necessity, be a charge upon public funds. I see no alternative. I think that the whole question of medical exemptions deserves the closest scrutiny, and I hope that we shall hear something more today from the Minister about how far the consultations have gone on this subject.
Will any member of the public who considers himself—or herself—eligible for


a medical certificate be free to find a doctor who will give him one? I imagine that there are members of the medical profession who would differ on whether an individual satisfied the conditions of the Bill. There would be a certain number of people who would run around from one GP to another trying to get a certificate. From what my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said, I imagine he will be looking for a GP to provide him with a certificate. I wonder whether he will have much difficulty in finding one.
The draft consultation letter claims that this will be a simple matter and it talks about a small fee being payable for the issue of a medical certificate. However, it fails to answer a whole range of questions which we asked in Committee. I make the same fundamental point that if these exemptions and regulations had been made part of the Bill in the first place, much of the debate we are having now would have been unnecessary and it would have been quite clear at the end of the day where people stood. It is the uncertainty which will be caused until the regulations are agreed which is quite unacceptable.

Mr. Marks: Is the hon. Member saying that we should have included a list of ailments and complaints in the exemptions?

Mr. Fry: No, not necessarily. I am saying that if we had had the kind of regulations the Government have in mind brought forward as part of the Bill in the first place, it would have meant that although Committee proceedings would have been much longer, by the time the Bill passed all its stages in the House we would have removed all the doubts which exist about a set of regulations which we still have not seen.
If the main aim of the Bill is to get a higher acceptability on the part of the public, the public would rather see the various arguments thrashed out in advance before the Bill in principle is passed into law. Many motorists feel very strongly about this.
The second category we were concerned with in Committee was related to occupation. Here again, during Committee stage we went into considerable detail on the

question of taxi drivers, delivery men and licensed driving instructors. I was interested to hear the speech on the previous amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who is honorary president of the National Association of Driving Instructors. I am aware that the consultative letter refers to persons riding with learner drivers and the fact that they might not be able to wear seat belts if they are to be able to reach the essential controls. But there is no clear commitment concerning driving instructors, or indeed on someone like myself who is going through purgatory at the moment because my son is learning to drive. If this regulation is brought into force there must be a much clearer indication of what the exemptions will be.

Mr. Lawrence: On the question of driving instructors, does my hon. Friend appreciate that unless there is a specific exemption for occupation, the exemption could be restricted to unlicensed driving instructors who are driving cars which are not equipped with dual control or inertia reel belts? Licensed driving instructors might find that they will be compelled to wear seat belts, so in these circumstances the occupational requirement is most vital.

Mr. Fry: Yes, I agree. That is why we put down a whole category under the heading "occupation". But I do not see why a mother or father, sister or brother of a driver should not have similar protection, especially if the handbrake is on the right hand side of the driver. It is often impossible to get hold of it in an emergency and it is much more difficult when tied in by a seat belt.
The greatest difficulty on occupational grounds arises in the interesting section in the consultative document about very short journeys. How short is a journey? It is the same old question. The consultative documents defines it as
… using a car for a purpose which requires the driver to make 10 or more stops in the course of a mile.
Will police constables drive behind vehicles to check or get out a tape measure to judge the other exemption, which specifies that there are stops
… at points not more than 200 yards apart"?


This will put a tremendous burden on the police. Spelled out like that, it is a nonsense. This part of the document answers no questions and will cause many disputes.
The fundamental point is to get public acceptability. This nit-picking legislation will only cause great public discontent and dispute between the police and the motoring public. Before the regulations come into force I hope that these suggestions will be improved.

Mr. Marks: It would help if hon. Members could suggest an alternative. It is obvious from the points that they made in Committee that they consider that short or slow journeys should be exempt. How would they do it?

Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in Committee gave the example of the Canadian definition, which is followed in the Department's own comparison with other countries. That is a definition of frequent journeys at less than 25 mph. So it is not true to say that there have been no suggestions from us. But the Minister is not prepared to accept them. My hon. Friend said that the Ontario legislation provided that the wearing of a seat belt would not apply
… when a vehicle is in reverse or when a person is actually required to alight from and re-enter a motor vehicle at frequent intervals, as long as the vehicle does not exceed 25 mph."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 13th May 1976, c. 168.]
Even in these days of congested city traffic most people do not drive at less than 25 mph unless making short journeys.
But it is the Government's job to present legislation and our job to question it. When we think that it is defective, we shall say so and will refer it back to the Minister.

Mr. Fell: Why does my hon. Friend keep talking about referring something to the Minister when the Minister is not here? He was well enough and disengaged enough to be here for the vote and then immediately went off. What is he doing? Why is the House of Commons putting up with this sort of rubbish which affects nearly half the people in the nation and the Minister comes in only for the vote to get his beastly little

Bill through and ignores the House for the rest of the time?

Mr. Fry: I understand that intervention. I hope that the Minister is putting these moments to constructive use otherwise he may have to be in the House for many more hours today. If that is not his intention, I suggest that he is having the appropriate discussions through the usual channels.
3.45 p.m.
I turn to the third amendment, dealing with emergency situations. Here perhaps there can be a slightly wider agreement with the consultative letter, which says:
There are likely to be certain occasions when it will be inadvisable for the officers of the police and fire services, when responding to an emergency, to put on seat belts. Such officers will therefore be exempt where the use of a seat belt would interfere with the performance of their duty.
But I hope that it will be made clear that there is no general exemption for the police when they are on normal patrol duties. It would be bad for police-public relations if they were seen driving around without seat belts and prosecuting members of the public who were not wearing belts.
The fourth category raises some of the biggest difficulties. I know that some of my hon. Friends—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), whose attitude towards the Bill on the whole has been anti rather than pro—feel that children deserve special protection. We wondered whether we should table amendments on how to define where children should sit in a motor vehicle if they were exempt from the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who is not here at present, has strong views on the matter, and I hope that he will contribute to the debate.
I hope that the Government will not lose the opportunity to point out to the public that even though young children sitting in front seats may be exempt from the compulsory wearing of belts they still run a considerable risk of injury. Perhaps in their general campaign of persuasion the Government will not neglect to give advice to parents that children should sit in the rear if they cannot have a seat belt fitted.
I know that under the stature provision the height figure will apply to a child, but something more exact is needed, if only because one cannot prosecute children. The public need more advice on the subject. I hope that we shall have from the Minister something more specific on the question of exemption for children.
I hope that the Under-Secretary does not think that I have gone over much the same ground as we covered in Committee. I have tried not to do that, but we must give hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee a chance to put forward their views. Second Reading was taken up with the principle. I know that in due course we shall debate the regulations, but all that the House can do then is to accept or reject them. Now is the time to make constructive suggestions so that when the regulations are introduced they are as acceptable as possible.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I support these amendments. I am not sure whether it is intended that we may have separate views on them, as they are grouped together. It is obviously inconevient to have a single vote on the amendments relating to exemptions, because one interrelates with the other. I hope that when it comes to the point, we shall be able to express our opinions on all the amendments. I do not know whether you can assist us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and say whether we shall be able to vote on each of them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman. Mr. Speaker has not indicated that he would accept a separate vote on each amendment.

Mr. Bell: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, this is a provisional selection of amendments. You will finally decide in the light of the debate, what will be the actual selection of amendments, without the word "provisional". I shall pin my hopes on your exercising your revising capacity in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has outlined the nature of our objections to the way in which the Minister intends to proceed, which may be summed up by saying that the Bill will be entirely general as it

stands. It simply empowers him to make regulations, and all exemptions, definitions and qualifications will appear in the regulations. We on this side of the House vary in our attitude to the Bill itself, but I think that there has been a consensus among us that certain safeguards for the ambit of the regulations ought to be in the Bill and not merely in the Minister's discretion. He is, of course, still free to make the regulations within the boundaries so defined.
I suppose that there are two reasons why we suggest these safeguards. First, we have a very natural reluctance—I think a widely-shared reluctance—to this kind of legislation which empowers a Minister to make regulations and leaves him absolutely free to make any regulations he wants. This cannot be a good kind of Act of Parliament. I am afraid that it is not unique.
Such Bills mark the ultimate in the abdication of Parliament from its control over the legislative process. Naturally, we want to put down a few boundary marks to say that the regulations will be such as the Minister makes but that they must include provision of some kind for this, that and the other, that they must not go beyond certain boundaries.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary will look at the amendments. Again I put in my parenthetic comment that I am addressing careful arguments to him, although I know that they do not matter because the Minister is not here. He has no intention of coming here, except for the vote. The Under-Secretary will not be free to respond to anything that we say. Therefore, I do not see why we bother to say it. However, I shall say it just the same.
The first category of exemptions is the medical exemptions. In the Bill there is nothing about medical exemptions. All we have is the document which the Minister promised he would make available in the Vote Office, copies of which he would send personally to those who served on the Standing Committee, and in which document he said he would formulate his thoughts on the subject. He has done that. We regret that these documents arrived in the post only this morning, so we have not had very much time to study the Minister's thoughts on the the subject,


which, while relevant to the Bill as a whole, are especially relevant to these amendments.
The Minister is saying "This is what I have in mind and in the light of that is it really necessary to put down amendments saying what the exemptions must be"? The answer is that it is. It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but what if he does not do what he has said he has in mind? There would be nothing that we could do. We know that the first regulations will be under the affirmative procedure, but we cannot amend them. It is no good saying to the Minister that he has not done what he had in mind in his consultative document circulated before Report on 25th June. That will not get us very far. We may have a debate on the regulations, but that is all.
It is important that these provisions are put in the Bill because the medical exemptions are awkward and tricky to define. The Minister has said "I shall deal with that by not defining them. A medical certificate, saying that one should not wear a seat belt will be all that is needed." That will be odd. I shall have psychological allergy against wearing a seatbelt and all sorts of other odd things could emerge.
The document says that a medical certificate will be issued for such a period as the physician prescribes, not exceeding five years. It will be a quasi-permanent certificate. What would happen if someone had no medical certificate of exemption and something occurred on a journey? Let us suppose that a person driving in the sort of weather we had yesterday—and probably have today outside our refrigerated Chamber—who

suffers from dermatitis has to take off his seat belt? He will have no defence and yet it is reasonable that he should take off the seat belt in those circumstances. We are proposing a law under which he would have no excuse.

I see that the Minister has entered the Chamber and I feel that repetition would not be tedious since the Minister does not know what I have said. We do not know where he has been. Perhaps he has been belted to a seat somewhere. I was pointing out that no provision is to be made for the physical condition which supervenes temporarily. The Minister sent us lists of what happens in other countries. One of them allows exemption in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require the wearing of a seat belt. That means that a person who has to go to court could say that this, that or the other happened and it was not reasonable in those circumstances to have to wear a seat belt.

That is a defence, but the Minister is not proposing anything like that. As he is not putting anything in the Bill and does not want us to do so, there is no way in which we can ensure that anything on these lines is provided. The list of exemptions in other countries does not encourage me to think that the Minister's definitions—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 38.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Atkinson, Norman
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bates, Alf
Gilbert, Dr John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Snaps, Peter


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Stallard, A. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Jessell, Toby
Tinn, James


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Weitzman, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Gerald
Williams, Sir Thomas


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth



Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Park, George
Mr. David Stoddart.


English, Michael






NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fry, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Ridsdale, Julian


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Silvester, Fred


Biggs-Davison, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Stradling Thomas, J.


Body, Richard
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Brotherton, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Buck, Antony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D.


Burden, F. A.
Mather, Carol
Viggers, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weatherill, Bernard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Moate, Roger



Clark, William (Croydon S)
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and


Fell, Anthony
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (SEAT BELTS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), Considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am flattered by that vote of confidence in me and the desire to hear further what I have to say on these important amendments.
You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when interrupted I was referring to the list which the Minister for Transport has circulated. Regrettably we have lost the Minister again so that for the time being I have lost the opportunity of persuading him—I suppose he will be back before dinner, but I do not know. I will carry on for a time and see whether he returns to hear what we have to say about his Bill.
The Minister who is not with us at the moment circulated a list of the categories. The Minister has rejoined us. Now that the Minister has arrived—No. 42 in the Division, I suppose—I can address him, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and attempt to persuade him that he should accept into the Bill, as distinct from the regulations, some of these limits and criteria which we are proposing. The list which he has sent round, for which we are grateful—although we did not have time to read it before we came here today—shows that other countries have a wider range of exemptions than is proposed in the Bill.
The first example is New South Wales. Reversing is common to all of them. The next category is "medical conditions by certificate". That is the same as the Minister proposes. Then there is the category "Physical condition by certificate." I do not quite know what that means. It

is something other than "medical conditions", I suppose. A further category is
work journeys involving frequent stops, under 15 m.p.h.
That is a perfect description of a commuter journey into or out of London in the rush hour. If we could have an exemption such as that, we should all be very happy. People are frequently stuck in traffic jams—

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Moate: That description covers not only people commuting by car but my constituents commuting by train.

Mr. Burden: And mine.

Mr. Bell: We have not yet heard of it, but the Minister no doubt has plans to introduce scat belts for use on trains. However, I am not sure that trains are motor vehicles, therefore perhaps I ought to pass on.
Another category is "inability to drive properly". That would cover many people. I do not know whether it covers the Minister. At the moment, the Minister has in mind using seat belts only in front seats. One of the great pests is the back seat driver. Back seat drivers ought to be made to wear seat belts—and gags as well.
In what is listed as "Australian Capital Territory" there is a final category, namely
Those who can show 'that failure to wear a belt was not unreasonable'.
That is apparently not part of the Minister's thinking at present. In other words, he is not making any allowance for the occasion where a defence arises. One realises why that is so when one comes to the end of the Minister's first document, obtained from the Vote Office, which says that the Secretary of State
has felt it right to draw the definitions tightly, believing that the combination of tight rules and flexible enforcement is least likely to lead to confusion or dissatisfaction.


That is not a view that I or others who have signed these amendments hold.
As I said earlier on a different group of amendments, it is contrary to our general tradition of English law that there should be a strict law and lax enforcement of it. I do not think that the Secretary of State will avoid dissatisfaction if he uses any system such as that. In a matter such as this people are entitled to know where they stand and within what circumscription they are to keep themselves. While we cannot achieve that by amendments that put requirements into this clause—and I accept that none of the four amendments actually achieves that—nevertheless the amendments make it more practicable and more possible for that objective to be attained.
Amendment No. 2 reads:
notwithstanding the generality of paragaph (b) shall prescribe that exception be made for such categories of occupation as may be prescribed.
That again seems to me to be a very much better approach than that envisaged by the Minister.
Other hon. Members have referred to these fantastic definitions which the Minister has circulated. For example, he is not exempting milk roundsmen as such, although that would make sense. One does not have to exempt a milk rounds-man because he is on a journey to Brighton with his family. That is not the point. But the milk roundsman driving a milk float should be exempted qua milk roundsman.
Instead of that, what we have here provided is that he is exempted if at the time he is engaged in a journey or an operation that requires him to stop no fewer than 10 times in every mile and, if engaged on a journey on which he is required to stop no fewer than 10 times in a mile, he claims exemption when stopped by a policeman on a journey of no more than 200 yards.
When that is applied in practical common sense it is just too silly for words. If he has to stop at least 10 times in a mile, his average length of journey is 176 yards. That is the average. He is allowed a margin of 24 yards because his customers may not live precisely the average distance apart. How silly can we get? If he is engaged on a journey of 220 yards

between two customers who live a little further apart than the average and a policeman stops him, he will explain that he is a milk roundsman, but the policeman will say that he has travelled more than 200 yards without wearing a seat belt and he will land up in court.

Mr. Burden: Would it not be a wonderful sight to see police officers with long rules in front of milk floats measuring whether they were going just over the distance allowed by the law?

Mr. Bell: That would be essential, in my view. There would have to be a milk float gang. What is more, there will have to be a continuous measure of 200 yards long otherwise there will be arguments about whether there was a finger placed between rules or that they overlapped.

Mr. Burden: I suppose that it would be possible to put down tapes in the road marking off the distance between houses to facilitate the bringing of prosecutions.

Mr. Bell: There are many ingenious methods that could be adopted. However, my broad point is that this is lust too silly for words. I see the Under-Secretary leaning forward pretending that he wishes to intervene—

Mr. Marks: I am sorry to interrupt the Morecambe and Wise act to which we have been listening during the past couple of minutes. However, electric milk floats do not have to be fitted with seat belts and, therefore, are not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Bell: In that case, I must ask the hon. Gentleman why he has all this joke about 200 yards and stopping 10 times in a mile if it does not apply to milk roundsmen.

Mr. Carlisle: A vehicle delivering milk does not necessarily have to be an electric float. Where I live, the milk is delivered by a petrol-engined car. I assume that that will be covered.

Mr. Bell: I think that my hon. and learned Friend may assume that the situation will be dealt with by allocating electric milk floats for all those people who live more than 200 yards apart and petrol-driven ones will have to do for people who live a bit closer together. I am sure that the Minister will tell us shortly how the police will cope with


that. This is the fairy land into which we are led by this absurd kind of pettifogging definition.
The amendment says that it should be by specified occupation, and that implies while the person is engaged in that occupation. It does not cover him on a family trip to Brighton. It covers him on his milk round or his bread round, and we do not need all this footling stuff about distances apart.
The second amendment in this group deals with emergency situations. That is what I was speaking about just now. There is no provision in the Minister's mind or in his circular for the emergency situation. I instanced a person suffering from the heat who felt that he had to remove his belt. That was only an illustration. There are many other instances when it would be reasonable for a person to drive without a seat belt.
The third amendment in this group deals with that situation. As the Minister has told us informally that he is not proposing to cater for that situation, it is important that we press that the amendment goes into the Bill. There should be such an emergency category.
The fourth amendment relates to categories of children. Again, we are getting into fairyland. Children are not dealt with, but people less than 5 ft are prescribed. It is a very odd way of proceeding. There are many people who are shorter than 5 ft and there are many children who are taller than 5 ft.
I understand that some countries sensibly refer to "unsuitable stature". What about the chap who, far from being 5 ft, is over 7 ft? In some countries he would come within exemption because he would be considered to be of unsuitable stature. The chap who is 8 ft tall will still have to wear a belt, even if he is sticking out of the top of the car. In that instance he would be firmly secured and could not possibly be thrown forward.
This is an absolute nonsense. We may see policemen producing a tape measure to measure a child. They may insist on the child lying down in the road while they run a tape measure along it. It is too silly for words. If the child is growing quickly, it may pass the 5 ft level before the measuring takes place.

A little common sense would be very useful.

Dr. Gilbert: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bell: A little common sense would be more easily found on this side of the House if we did not have to debate these matters late on a Friday afternoon. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to accept the Bill and sweep all these matters aside. It may well be necessary to stay here until 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock tonight, or even later, when we come to important matters upon which there are strong feelings—for example, the Government were defeated in Committee on the size of the penalty. There will be Third Reading, on which Members will want to vote.
It is an absolute scandal that we should have to consider these matters at a late hour on a Friday afternoon after suspending the four o'clock rule.

Mr. Fell: Another cheat.

Mr. Bell: It may not be the Minister's fault, and it is not for him to say whose fault it is, but he might find that a little astringent lotion would be poured over our proceedings if we were given a reasonable assurance about the proposed future of today's business. In the absence of that assurance, and being extremely conscious of the importance of some of the matters on the Order Paper, I am afraid that we shall have to give these matters the close, careful, persistent and elaborate attention which they plainly deserve and which we are all here to ensure that they get.

Mr. Moate: I agree with the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) about the inappropriateness of the time for a debate of this significance. I believe that it was quite right to vote against suspending the rule. It would be seen by the country as being quite wrong for these important matters to be considered at a late hour on a Friday when by custom and accepted practice the House is thinly attended.
4.30 p.m.
I remind the Minister of an event that occurred in the House about two years ago on seat belt legislation. On the occasion to which I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and I forced a Division on the


principle of adding seat belt legislation to a road traffic Bill then passing through the House. The then Minister, though a supporter and advocate of seat belt legislation, voted against our proposition. His reasons for doing so were that he thought that a Friday evening in a thin House was quite the wrong time to discuss a matter of such importance and with such an impact on the people of Britain. Yet here we are again, two years later—and when the Government preach urgency, let them remember that it has taken two years to come back to this matter—and again dealing with matters of very extreme importance in just the same circumstances that the then Minister previously regarded as wrong.
I hope that the Minister will use his influence on his colleagues to ensure that this does not continue indefinitely and that we come back at a more appropriate time to discuss the important issues still ahead of us in considering the Bill on report, and certainly before Third Reading.

Dr. Glyn: Is it not true that this sort of thing does not enhance the stature of the House when the Division records are seen and when, as my hon. Friend has just said, matters of such importance are discussed and the public read the next day that only x number of Members were here and that the matter was dealt with on a Friday afternoon? I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not the time that a matter of this sort should be discussed.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point. That point is supported by so many hon. Members. I suspect that it is supported by the Minister. I think that he is a victim of the Whips, rather than the culprit. I hope that he will rectify this situation fairly soon so that Members can go and perform their constituency duties, which they are straining at the leash to undertake this evening.
Regardless of whether one supports any or all of these amendments or is against them, had it not been for my hon. Friend tabling these amendments relating to exemptions we might not have had any opportunity on Report of discussing exemptions at all. There is no other provision in the selection of amendments or new clauses whereby we could be dis

cussing these questions at all. That is quite a reflection on the procedure that has been adopted. It might have been the case that the House was not able to discuss the exemptions. Yet there could hardly be a matter of greater sensitivity or importance to the public than the exemptions proposed. Had these amendments not been tabled, what would have been the point of the Minister producing the consultation document which has now been made available to all hon. Members? What would have been the point of that had we not had an opportunity for debating the exemptions?
That brings me to another point. While one is grateful for a consultation document of this kind, it is right to point out that receiving it only this morning in the post is totally inadequate. It is a very important matter, which clarifies certain points made in Committee. Those hon. Members who served on the Committee received the document in the post this morning. We were told that it would be on the Letter Board last night. However, I was here until 1.15 this morning and it certainly was not made available to me then. Other hon. Members not on the Committee would have heard about its existence in the Vote Office only at 11 o'clock this morning. Therefore, we cannot have an intelligent, wide-ranging and informed debate when the consultation document was made available to the House only this morning.
That emphasised the unsatisfactory nature of having regulations formulated in this way. We know that this is the growing practice of the House but it is a very unfortunate practice. We know that there is now so much legislation which provides for regulations subsequently to be made and that we have little chance of amending those regulations even, sometimes, of voting on them. It is a very dangerous procedure.
In this particular case the Government would have been well advised to have adopted a different procedure. I see no fundamental reason why they could not have incorporated these proposals in the Bill itself. I need hardly say that that would have meant numerous amendments at a later stage, but it would have made for a better examination by Parliament had we had them in the Bill.
Had that not been possible, it would still have been open to the Department


to produce draft regulations which we could have discussed at the same time as the Bill. Had we had those regulations they would have been examined in depth in Committee and on Report, and again in the other place; there would have been a continuing consultation process in the country; and by the time the Bill went on to the statute book we should probably have knocked the thing into shape and achieved a better outcome. The Bill in its present form will leave many loose ends, and this procedure will increase the chances of the Minister having to come back in a year or two to make further amendments.
The situation is unsatisfactory, and there is some criticism to be levelled against the Government for having done too little preparation. My impression is that they spent so much time arguing about the principle that they gave too little thought to how they would finally present the legislation. After two years of examination they should have had a much clearer idea of what they really wanted. It is only now, after a lengthy Committee stage, that they have produced all these lists and comparisons with other countries. They could have done this a couple of months ago, and had they done so they would have helped the Committee. There is, therefore, that ground for criticism.
I now come to some of the detailed exemptions referred to in the amendments and covered by the consultation document. My first point relates to the contrast between the proposals for medical exemptions and those relating to what are called practicability exemptions. There is some reference to disabled people. An exemption is proposed on medical grounds, but different considerations apply to those who are to be exempt on grounds of physical disability. It puzzles me that in the first case the exempt person must have a medical certificate, while it is not clear that a person who is exempt because he suffers from a disability must have a certificate. In fact, it appears from the subsequent description that all those who are exempt, apart from those suffering from a medical condition, do not need a certificate. It says that people exempted under paragraphs B to F—that is, all the other range of exemptions—
will not be provided with any certificate since the circumstances defining the exemption are in each case a matter of observable fact.

There is an important point at issue here, and at some stage the Minister must clarify the position. If someone believes himself to be medically exempt because he is suffering from, say, claustrophobia but he has not been to a doctor to get a medical certificate, according to the consultation document he is committing an offence unless he can produce that medical certificate to the police officer at the time or within a short time thereafter. On the other hand, if he has a disability, such as frozen shoulder, which is the case that I quoted to the Minister before, apparently he does not need a medical certificate. All that he needs to do is to prove to the court afterwards that he is disabled.
There are different criteria for different classes of people, and it could mean that one person who is genuinely medically unfit but has failed to get a certificate will be penalised while another person who has what is called a physical disability but has no certificate because he does not need one will not be penalised. The Minister must clear up this matter. As the consultation document suggests, the answer is that it should be sufficient, subsequent to the alleged offence, to produce medical evidence that someone would have been exempt had he applied for a medical certificate. I cannot think that that will lead to any great abuse of the law, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
It is suggested that the period for which a medical certificate should be valid should be left to the doctor, but be subject to a maximum of five years. Why five years? Surely doctors have sufficient intelligence to judge whether a disability is permanent? I think that it is reasonable to suggest that if a person is permanently disabled the doctor should give him a certificate for life.
I disagree with the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend which gives exemption by occupation. We have had endless debates about this—whether doctors, newspaper delivery boys, or milkmen should be exempted. This is the wrong way to deal with the question. I prefer the Government approach of classifying short journeys, but I part company with the Government because I think they verge on the ridiculous when they try to lay down such precise conditions as those which are proposed in the


consultative document. For example, to suggest that occupants should not have to wear belts on roads where the speed limit is 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h. and their vehicle is being used for a purpose which requires them to make 10 or more stops in the course of a mile at points more than 200 yards apart, is ridiculous. They are trying to follow through the philosophy of tight rules and hope that the courts will interpret them flexibly. This is a nonsense approach which brings the law into disrepute very quickly. It would be better to follow the reverse process—have flexible rules and leave it to the courts to establish whether a person is engaged in short distance collection or delivery services. They would be far better advised to do that.
On the question of medical certificates related to disability, we are told that these certificates have to be produced on the spot or at a police station within the normal period, which is, I believe, five days. Difficulties are being encountered at present in bringing licences to a police station in that period, and five days is often totally inadequate. The Under-Secretary has said that two or three weeks is a normal period for the dispatch of documents. In those circumstances five days would seem to be inadequate, and consideration should be given to extending the period in which the medical certificate is produced.
This is a consultative document, but I regard this as an improper time to discuss such matters. I think the Government are on the right lines broadly, and while these amendments have been most helpful in airing this matter I hope they will not be forced to a Division.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I regret that we are debating these matters at this hour on a Friday evening. I think that the Minister shares this regret because when I raised a semi-improper point of order on this at 11 o'clock this morning to get an indication of the Minister's point of view, he said he did not think it was proper that we should be taking these decisions at 7 or 8 o'clock on a Friday night. If we are to carry a Bill through the House which will affect everyone who gets into a motor car, I would suggest to the Minister that it would be right for the public to see its

progress through a full House rather than through a House with only a few Members on a Friday evening. I am opposed to the principle of the Bill, but if we are to have this legislation, people outside will regard it as wrong if it goes through at a time when there is not the wholehearted support of Parliament.
The exemptions show the impracticality of the scheme. I understand that the supporters of the Bill accept that there must be exemptions or the law will be a nonsense. Therefore those exemptions should be clearly defined. But it becomes immediately apparent from those exempttions that they cannot be clearly defined. We are told that obese people will find that in some seats the belt is too short to be worn. Therefore obese people will be exempt—or will it be only obese people in cars with short seat belts? I am asked, apparently, about the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). Another of my hon. Friends said that it would be wrong to make this an issue of personalities. But what is an obese person? Will there be regulations to say that this is a crime unless someone is obese? There cannot be a medical certificate to that effect because it is not a medical condition.
This is to be a matter of observable fact. Views may vary on obesity. Will it be judged on weight, girth, height or vital statistics? The person concerned will have to prove it in court. The hon. Member who has been referred to might be taken to court for this offence. He would have to say that he was not wearing his seat belt but that the reason was that he was obese. This is what is required, but it will not do.
Another exemption is of those under 5 ft in height. The Minister said that some of these points were being taken to ludicrous extremes, but there might be a six months delay between the offence and a court appearance. When a child is involved, it is relevant to ask whether his height at the time of the offence or his height when he appears in court is to be the observable fact. If he is over 5 ft when he appears in court he will be entitled to say that he was under 5 ft when the offence was committed and no one will be able to say whether that is true.
Let me give some more obvious examples. Is it sensible to suggest that one is committing an offence if one is in a car built since 1st January 1965 but not if the car were built before then, although that car happens to have a seat belt? What is meant by the words:
The requirement will apply only where the belt is capable of being used"?
Of course it should apply only in those circumstances, but what is a belt "capable of being used"? If somebody cannot fasten a belt because it is unserviceable, no offence will be committed.
I have a car which has been back to the garage four times since it was bought new a year ago because of the unsatisfactory nature of the seat belts, which are of the inertia reel type. I am told that the trouble is not unusual. The belts start to tighten themselves automatically and thus become unserviceable. Sometimes one can put the belts on, but at other times they start to pull back the moment they have been fastened. It is the impracticality of the definition of exemptions which makes the point that it is absurd to proceed with such legislation.
I do not want to speak for long, because the Minister is entitled to ask, in regard to the criticism about our continuing past 5 o'clock. "If hon. Members speak for too long, what can I do about it?" Although I am an opponent of the Bill I have spoken only twice today, once for eight minutes and the other time for five minutes. I do not think that the Minister can suggest that that is speaking at undue length.

Mr. Burden: How does one determine whether a person can fasten a seat belt? He may say that as a pretext in order not to wear it. How does one prove that he is capable of fastening the belt.

Mr. Carlisle: That question goes rather wider than the amendment, but it covers one of my major objections to the legislation, which is that it is unenforceable and will do nothing but create friction between the police and the public.
I turn next to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who takes a totally different view from mine about the principle, about very short journeys. The Department, probably with the assistance of the Home

Office and other Departments, has done its best to provide what it suggests is a workable definition, but it will not do. Is it suggested that if there are eight houses at 50-yard intervals, but there is a distance of three-quarters of a mile between groups of houses, the milkman is bound to wear a seat belt as he is going between the eight, but that if two other houses are built between the groups he no longer has to wear one?
If we are to have this legislation, which I oppose in principle, there is an argument for introducing it experimentally and starting with main roads and motorways outside towns. I know that it is said that many accidents happen in towns, but it would be far better initially to exempt urban traffic moving slowly in crowded conditions, where the wearing of seat belts would cause more and more irritation and where it is less likely to reduce the types of injury caused in accidents.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the French started with compulsory wearing of seat belts on country roads only but about a year later extended the law to towns? In the intervening period there were many casualties in towns which would have been avoided if they had introduced the law for the whole country in the first place.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend sticks to the view that it is only by making things compulsory that people can be persuaded to take care of themselves. I do not accept that. People should be encouraged to wear seat belts in conditions when they think it is right to wear them. We should not make the postman or the newspaper delivery man wear a seat belt when he is constantly getting out of his car every few yards, merely because there happen to be eight houses in a row and not nine or 10.
I oppose the Bill, but if we are to have the Bill let us start in a realistic way, which means having much more sensible exemptions than we have now and having the minimum number of exemptions, as put forward by the Opposition Front Bench.
I hope that I have expressed my general reasons for saying that the proposed exemptions are unworkable, because they cannot be clearly and simply defined, which the Minister states is a necessary


prerequisite. If the exemptions are not clearly definable it is better not to have the regulations but to go back to persuasion rather than compulsion.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I find it difficult to recall a more inept example of how to get through the House of Commons a Bill on which practically every Member of the House feels that he is an expert. One has known in one's time in this place occasions when a Department has wanted to get some business through in a hurry and other occasions when the Department was incredibly slow. In my experience it is slow when the majority of people want the Bill and it is fast when the Department has its own notions as to what is necessary.
The Minister chided my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) when he mentioned the phrase "common sense", as though common sense resided in the Minister's hands and in nobody else's. There is nothing in the history of the Department, of which he is doubtless the proud head, that gives me the notion that common sense resides there. If we are to debate these amendments relying on the judgment of the Department, one has only to remember the old idea that the "men in Whitehall", as they used to be known, knew best, that they had the judgment, that they were the oracle. In fact, this is not so. Only 60 years ago the experts in the War Office decided that the tank and the hand grenade had no military value.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: There is a much more recent example when it was decided in the Air Ministry that there was no future for the jet engine.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I was tempted to say that there are more recent examples in the Minister's own Department.
Soon after I first came to the House, the Ministry of Transport decided that cat's eyes on roads were not necessary. That was a key decision. It was only after an outcry on behalf of motorists and the public that the Department was persuaded to withdraw from that decision.
I went to the Department and said that in my experience the problem with traffic at crossroads lay not with the first vehicle across the crossing but with the last one that sneaked across. I suggested that a square was needed—I suggested a red painted square—at intersections over which traffic should not pass in certain circumstances. "Oh no", said the Ministry of Transport, "that would be quite impossible. It would not work. We should get tailbacks three times as long as we get already." Twenty years later the policy I advocated was introduced by the Ministry.
The Government fought Continental-type road signs for years but eventually they came round to them. There are a number of other examples.
I cannot find any reference in the consultative document to exemptions for vehicles that have no hood—the sports car. They can be lethal if seat belts are worn. Twenty years ago my wife would have been killed if she had been caught in a seat belt. If one is not thrown clear from a sports car when it overturns one's neck is broken.

Mr. Ronald Bell: In Committee I tabled amendments about that. I said that there is nothing more disquieting when standing on one's head than having a motor car strapped to one.

5.0 p.m.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Being strapped in a motor car that has no roof and no roll bar and that turns over is a passport to a broken neck and death. But there is no mention of it in the consultative document and I hope that the Minister will give the House some information about that. Hon. Members have discussed how one decides whether a person is obese. The document conveys little to me about that.
The document mentions exemption for very short journeys, but 38 per cent. of fatal and serious casualties are among drivers and front-seat passengers travelling in built-up areas. We have heard much about how many people will have their lives saved and yet we are proposing to exclude one-third of them from having their lives saved.
The Ministry is once again trying to say what people should do. I go along with my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Beaconsfield when he said that people in their wisdom—and drivers should have wisdom—should decide when is the right occasion to use a seat belt and when is the wrong occasion. The Minister is making a foolish attempt to distinguish between the two. The average driver can do that for himself.

Mr. Burden: I regret that we have to continue the debate this afternoon. In principle I am in agreement with the Bill because I find it difficult to object to it. If one accepts that seat belts save life and stop injury, it is surely difficult to argue that there should not be provision to ensure that seat belts are made mandatory in conditions in which it is believed that life is endangered and injuries may occur. One's own experience from a number of years on the road shows that accidents can occur even to the best drivers and in the most unusual of circumstances.
I have no intention of repeating what I said earlier about the involvement of the health service and the consequences to doctors, nurses, and the families of those who are injured. In general I support any regulations that will save human life and injury. That is the stand I am taking.
I am also greatly concerned about the regulations. We have before us a consultative document, but some of the points in it appear to be quite ridiculous. Throughout the many years I have been in this House I have become a little sceptical about the wisdom of producing regulations without the House being able to debate them or amend them afterwards. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give the House an opportunity to discuss those regulations before they are made mandatory. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to this idea to a limited extent because it will help to remove many of the fears of some of my hon. Friends and many of the motoring and other organisations.
A great deal has been said about the exemptions. It appears to be a matter of medical experience, knowledge and common sense. I hope that the Minister is in close consultation with the British medical profession in an effort to produce sensible guidelines to practitioners who will have to decide whether exemptions

shall be made. Obviously in many instances exemptions should be made only for a short period rather than in perpetuity. An illness or a physical disability—for example, a broken leg—may make it impossible for a person for a short period of time to use a seat belt properly. Therefore, on medical grounds such a driver may need to be given exemption, but that exemption should last only until such time as the person concerned has recovered from that disability.
I am greatly encouraged by the fact that the Minister has given an undertaking that before he imposes regulations and makes them mandatory, he will bring them to the House so that we may be able to discuss and possibly amend them. If that happens, then it will remove a great deal of concern on this matter—concern which has been expressed by a great many people, including Members of Parliament. Obviously it is felt that Parliament should be in a position to re-examine these matters.
I see the Minister for Transport and Under-Secretary of State for the Environment discussing this matter at this very moment. I am sure that they will appreciate that there is a great deal of good will on this topic in the country, although perhaps some of my hon. Friends are a little sceptical. However, a great deal of that scepticism will disappear if they had the opportunity to examine what is proposed before measures such as this are passed into law. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking on those lines.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend appears to indicate that my colleagues and I are sceptical, but is not that scepticism justifield, following a debate earlier this morning when certain comments were made by the Minister about the affirmative resolution procedure?

Mr. Burden: I have already explained that I was unable to be here this morning. I did not hear that part of the debate because I was at another meeting which can often be fiery—the annual meeting of the RSPCA—though it was calm and quiet today.
I hope that the Minister will give the undertakings for which I have asked.

Dr. Glyn: I still believe that the use of seat belts should be left to the common sense of the driver and should not be a dictate from Whitehall. I thank the Minister for ensuring that we received a copy of the draft consultation letter. Even though it arrived only this morning, we have been able to go through it carefully in the debate.
Of course draft regulations cannot be debated or amended. When the regulations themselves are presented to Parliament they must either be accepted in toto or rejected completely. Even if presented under the affirmative resolution procedure, the regulations could not be changed.
I had to leave the Chamber for a short while, but apart from that I have listened to the entire debate about the draft regulations and it is clear that they are impracticable. Take the provisions regarding obesity, for instance. It will not be a question of having to put a measuring tape around someone's waist. A doctor will have to decide whether a patient is so obese that he cannot wear a seat belt. My hon. Friends have already mentioned how ridiculous it would be to measure the height of children.
I rarely speak on medical matters in the House, but I wish to comment on the medical aspects of the Bill. Although I welcome the consultations with the profession, the test will have to be whether a patient would suffer personally or his standard of driving deteriorate if he wore a seat belt. It would be extremely difficult to draw up a list of diseases and derformities for which doctors should produce exemption certificates. The Government should think again. If the Bill is to become law, we want to ensure that it is properly drafted.
It is for the medical practitioner to decide, on the criteria, whether a person is able to wear a belt. There might have to be further consideration about permanent or temporary exemptions. The doctor will be faced with extremely difficult decisions. There will always be borderline cases. I suggest that he obesity referred to in paragraph (c) of the categories should be removed to paragraph (a). Some of the categories of disabled people may well have to be treated differently from a medical and social security point of view. This illustrates the complexity of drawing up categories.
There is also the point about short journeys. It is obvious that every street in the country is different. We do not want the police going round with tape measures. This will create a good deal of conflict between the police and the driving public.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would my hon. Friend not agree that if the police follow the milk roundsman with their tape measures and measure the distance he travels, the roundsman will probably eventually be entitled to a medical certificate?

Dr. Glyn: Yes, and the policeman will be very unlikely to get his milk.
These are matters which affect millions of people. They ought to be the subject of debate and ought to be incorporated into the Act. The Minister will no doubt say that previous Conservative Governments have done the same thing. That is not a defence. We have found that this procedure is unsatisfactory and we should produce something which works better. The regulations should be capable of being subjected to the scrutiny of this House so that hon. Members who are professionals in various areas can help the Government in drawing them up correctly.
I dislike legislation by means of the negative resolution procedure, or even by the affirmative procedure. I like to see everything in the statute. I have a genuine fear that we will have situations with the police racing past an ordinary motorist trying to see whether his seat belt is properly fastened. They may stop the man and by the time he is stopped it may be that his belt is loose.
This will be one of the most difficult regulations to enforce. No order should be given that cannot be carried out. Equally, we should not enact a law if it cannot be enforced. In any event, there is far too much legislation these days. We must frame this legislation in such a way that it is easily interpreted, so that it creates as little friction as possible between the general public and the police. The police will not like carrying out the terms of this legislation.

Mr. Marks: I appreciate that some hon. Gentlemen have been seeking by these amendments to obtain assurances and to debate matters which may not


have been fully covered in the Second Reading debate and the 15 hours in Committee. I accept that many hon. Members have done this with great sincerity.
I think that the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) summarised the attitude of the opponents of the Bill in the past six hours of debate. My hon. Friend the Minister is seeking to be as reasonable as he can in giving exemptions to those who may be harmed by the Bill, and the attempt has been made to prove that the exemptions are unworkable. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, if the exemptions are unworkable, the Bill is unworkable.
I assure the House that during the coming period, after the Royal Assent is received, there will be full consultations with all organisations concerned, including the driving instructors. Draft regulations will be sent to these organisations and will at the same time be available to hon. Members.

Mr. Fry: Will the Minister say why there has been a delay? Surely the Department must have had some idea what the draft regulations would be. After all, there was a Bill before the House in the last Session, some 15 months ago. Why, therefore, could not the draft regulations or the consultative letter be ready, so that the Minister might have been able to report to the House today on the result of some of those consultations?

Mr. Marks: It would not be usual for consultations of this kind to go on before an Act such as this has been passed.
I say to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) that the Bill is not before us at the dictate of Whitehall. It results from a decision made by Parliament and the House of Commons on a free vote, with an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill as presented. Having obtained the support of the House, my hon. Friend has sought to be reasonable on the exemptions.
Inevitably, these can create a great deal of discussion and provide the opportunity for a great deal of fun, but this matter is serious, as has been pointed out. Injuries are occurring which could have been avoided—the evidence from other

countries' experience shows this—if this measure had been in operation.
Some hon. Members have referred to what they regard as the more ridiculous aspects of enforcement in other countries, but nobody quoted Israel, where people have to wear a seat belt and where any dispensation to do otherwise is only at the discretion of the courts.
My hon. Friend has been as reasonable as he can on the subject of exemptions.

Mr. Burden: Apparently the regulations will become mandatory shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Without them the Bill has no guts whatsoever. The Minister has stated that draft regulations will be released and that there will be consulation on them. One could like to know when those draft regulations are likely to be available, so that there will be sufficient time for interested organisations and hon. Members to give them consideration. It is disturbing that we shall not have the opportunity of debating them officially.

Mr. Marks: I do not think it would be wise to print draft regulations until we have heard the opinions of this House and the other place and before the Royal Assent is received. When it is, and we have made the draft regulations, they will be issued to authorities or to anybody else wishing to see them. They will be made available to hon. Members. I have not noticed any reluctance of hon. Members or inability of hon. Members to get matters raised or debated in the House without having a specific debate, as we shall have later, on an affirmative resolution.
A number of suggestions have been made in the debate. The problem with all of them is that they will narrow the area of consultation on exemptions.
I was asked how far the current consultation had gone. So far, with the BMA it has been informal. We have written pointing out that the Bill is proceeding through the House but we have received no reply as yet, though we had an opinion from the BMA on the subject of the possible fee that doctors might charge for a certificate.
On the question of the medical grounds, I think that it would be a disaster if we or the BMA tried to give a hard and fast list of the ailments or complaints which ought to be exempted. As the


hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead said, we ought to try to avoid that.

Dr. Glyn: The Minister misquoted me earlier. I said that it was my opinion that I preferred common sense to Whitehall dictate but that, given that, I was prepared to advance any form of argument which would help to make the Bill better. This was one of them.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful for that clarification.
The Government envisage that individual doctors will have full discretion to decide whether and for how long a patient's condition warrants exemption. The point raised by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) about five years is reasonable, and we shall discuss it with the doctors. Five years seems a reasonable time. Probably it is also a reasonable time for a licence printed on paper to last, too.
Many organisations, in consultation with the Government, will publish guidance on this matter. I think that it would be hazardous to give an exhaustive list of conditions. Some hon. Members may remember the problem that we had when we tried to make exemptions from prescription charges. I am sure that those opponents of the Bill who wish to obstruct it would have a field day if we attempted to make a list of ailments in the Act. If we did that, it would on the one hand preclude the issue of a certificate for a rare condition not foreseen in preparing the list, and on the other would create a misleading expectation that having a named condition automatically created a right to a certificate, even though the doctor's clinical judgment was that in a particular case the condition was insufficiently serious or took a form to which the wearing of a seat belt had no relevance.
When we come to occupations, we get into a rather difficult area. My hon. Friend has sought to find some reasonable way of exempting the drivers of vehicles engaged on short and slow journeys. Milkmen and others have been quoted as examples. Naming them by occupation would not be the answer. Even a milkman, if he were driving a petrol-driven vehicle which required a seat belt under the proposed regulations, would

often have a fairly long journey from the dairy to the start of his round. If he had seat belts compulsorily fixed in his vehicle, he ought to wear them on the occasions when he did that.
As for driving instructors, their organisations will certainly be consulted on this matter. As I said in Committee, I appreciate that there are difficulties, even with dual controls, in reaching some of the controls which it might be necessary to operate urgently. So there is nothing final in any suggestion that driving instructors should not be exempt in dual control vehicles. Certainly we say that we should probably need exemptions for anyone accompanying a learner driver, by which I mean not just an examiner but anyone, whether a professional instructor or not.
We shall be consulting all these organisations of the occupations represented but we feel that it would not be wise to provide in the regulations a list of occupations which would automatically be exempted. I am sure that the House as a whole will accept that.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is no longer with us, in view of his complaints about the police. On the question of the emergency services, we all realise that in certain cases police, firemen and so on may need to be exempted in the execution of their job, whether it is a matter of holding on to prisoners or being able to get out of a vehicle very quickly in the case of a chase. At the beginning of the debate I wondered whether some hon. Members would suggest that others should be considered as well as the police and fire service personnel, or that it should be left to the police to realise that there is an emergency when their checks take place.
5.30 p.m.
I think it is necessary to accept that the police will act reasonably. I know that they do not wish to be awkward. It may be said that many of them do not want the job of enforcing this measure. Nevertheless, the House has decided that in principle the compulsory wearing of seat belts should be enforced. It is the job of the police to do the enforcing.
As the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn said, it is much better if we can persuade people that they should


wear belts, but the evidence is that persuasion has not worked as well as compulsion. We have had some great campaigns. For a while they resulted in an increased number wearing seat belts. However, as each campaign stopped, the wearing figures decreased. Other countries have found that compulsory wearing has doubled the number of people wearing scat belts. That is why we feel justified in going ahead with this measure.
Mention has been made of the possibility of somebody being affected by dermatitis in hot weather. That was an original thought that was perhaps brought on by the hot weather. Surely that is a medical condition that would be considered by the person suffering from it a long time before he or she encountered the heat wave.
There is some difficulty about children. I have talked to children of various ages and sizes, and I can assure the House that age and size are not always proportional. There are some extremely large 12-yearolds and some particularly small adults. In considering exemptions, we have tried to find some way of exempting those for whom the normal seat belt would not be appropriate. Instead of defining children, we have defined by using height. We have heard a lot of nonsense about tape measures, people lying on the ground and so forth, but I think it is reasonable for a policeman to think that a person is about 5 ft. in height and that he should or should not be wearing a seat belt.
I do not visualise the awkwardness on the part of the police that others seem to suggest. I have promised to take note of what the hon. Member for Faversham said about a five-year limit for certificates and disability. In the main, I think that the disabled will find it more convenient to obtain a medical certificate. Of course, those suffering from certain conditions would be recognised by policemen as being most unsuitable wearers of seat belts. Instead of making the restrictions tight, as has been suggested, and in my opinion, too tight, so that exception could not easily be made, we believe that we should consult the medical people and those representing certain occupations and leave a great deal of judgment with the police.
It has been suggested that we introduce this Bill only for those using main roads and not for the city traffic. We

want to encourage people to fasten their seat belts when they get into a car and to realise that they are just as important, if they are thinking about safety as well as getting to their destination, as switching on the ignition, starting the engine, and taking off the hand brake.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of what the Minister said, but I am told that he did not deal with the question of the open sports car, which I suggested was an absolutely lethal conveyance if a seat belt was being worn.

Mr. Marks: The subject of the sports car was dealt with at great length in Committee when an amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), and my impression was that he was so convinced by the argument that he withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Bell: Not in the least. I allowed it to be negatived.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I am sorry to press this matter, but it is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): We do not want to get into a second round of debate based on interventions.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I was hoping that the Minister would be able to say that he had looked into this matter again. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) raised it in Committee and that there was a discussion. This matter merits another look. Someone will be killed for the sole reason that the Minister has not included a particular exemption in the regulations.

Mr. Marks: This matter will be examined. The whole point about road accidents is that usually they involve a frontal impact. The great danger in the vast majority of cases is of people being flung forward, whether they are in a sports car or any other kind of car. The danger lies in the force with which a person hits a windscreen or a steering wheel, and that applies to sports cars as to any other cars. Therefore, on balance, it is better for the person in a sports car to be wearing his seat belt so that that does not happen to him. The number of accidents involving cars over-


turning is a very small proportion of the total number of accidents.

Mr. Mather: rose—

Mr. Fry: I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would still be calling one or two of my colleagues who wish to speak on these amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was in the process of seeing who wanted to catch my eye.

Mr. Mather: Perhaps I may make a few brief observations on these amendments. As many of my hon. Friends have said, this is a very late hour on a Friday evening. Many hon. Members who would wish to be here to debate this matter are naturally not able to be here because it was possible for them to get away to their constituencies, for reasons we well know. It is rare for the rule to be suspended on a Friday afternoon. Legislation that is very important, such as the Hare Coursing Bill, must be involved for the Government to suspend the rule and to get Ministers back from Chequers, or wherever they are. On two occasions this involved the return of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But where are they today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendment.

Mr. Mather: I should like to pick up one comment by the Under-Secretary on these amendments. His words were to the effect that the amendments would narrow the scope for consultations. What the hon. Gentleman must mean is that we are not to legislate here in this House and that the field must be left open for others to decide these matters, that we must leave a clean slate so that consultations can take place with outside bodies. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was saying that he was debarring us from making any specific alterations and from having our amendments accepted.
I agree that it is difficult to know where the consultation process should come. However, it seems absolutely wrong that it should come after the House has considered these matters and not before. I should have thought that it would be much more sensible with a complicated

measure of this sort to have a Green Paper in advance so that consultations could take place with all concerned. That process having taken place, all of us could have considered the results of the consultations and made the necessary changes.

Mr. Marks: I may have misled the hon. Gentleman. I was saying that if we were to accept the amendment and try to tie down in the regulations the list of medical categories and occupations, we should make a big mistake. Not long ago my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport introduced a measure on the subject of headlights. There was a big row because it was said that there had not been adequate consultation outside the House before the proposal was introduced.

Mr. Mather: There are two ways of doing this. There have been a number of criticisms on the detail of the regulations that the Minister has in mind. It is necessary for the House to be able to act on something specific. What is proposed is unspecific, because it is subject to changes following consultations outside the House. We were extremely lucky in Committee to be able to debate the draft regulations at all, because we were advised officially that technically it was out of order to discuss them because they did not form part of the Bill. It was only because the Minister happened to mention that some draft regulations were tucked away—

Mr. Marks: My hon. Friend did not on that occasion say that they were draft regulations. He said that there were some ideas in the Department. That was emphasised, and I must repeat that they were not draft regulations.

Mr. Mather: I do not want to quibble over this. They were ideas on the form that the regulations might take, but we were advised officially that it was technically out of order to discuss anything that was not in the Bill. We were therefore fortunate to be able to discuss those ideas at all. Now we hear that changes are likely following discussions with outside bodies, and we may therefore be discussing something that is totally ineffective.
The consultation document conflicts in many respects with earlier statements,


and we are not satisfied with what the Minister has had to say. I hope that before the debate concludes he will have a chance to revise his opinions.

Dr. Gilbert: I have been listening with great attention to what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, and I see the force of the argument that possibly we have gone on for long enough today, it being Friday. I think that we have had a valuable debate, and Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), have made more than one representation about whether we should continue our proceedings today. I hope that it will be agreeable if we adjourn. I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

Question put and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — MR. IVOR GRAHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn,—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a long debate, during which a number of hon. Members have waited to speak to other matters. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) has been waiting for some considerable time to begin his debate—and as he has now arrived in the Chamber I will resume my seat.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of Mr. Ivor Graham. It is an extraordinary case. Mr. Graham is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) but as my hon. Friend is a Minister, he is precluded from raising the matter. I do so with his consent, as the Member for the adjoining constituency.
On 5th and 6th December 1974, Mr. Graham was arraigned and tried on a charge of theft at the Inner London Crown Court. He was a man of excellent character and had never before been

accused of any act of dishonesty or any crime. In fact, on one occasion, he was commended by the police for his honesty in a certain incident.
After the whole of the evidence had been given, the judge indicated to the jury that he had taken a certain view of the effect of the evidence upon them and explained that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution, and that it was absolutely necessary to satisfy the jury that Mr. Graham had acted dishonestly. If the jury were not satisfied, Mr. Graham was entitled to be acquitted. In other words, the judge was saying to the jury "You may think you have heard enough and stop the case." The jury wished to retire and consider the matter, and they were given permission to do so. After 11 minutes they returned to the court, and this conversation followed:
Judge: Mr. Foreman, do you wish the case to proceed or not?
Foreman: No.
Judge: You realise that it follows, therefore, that the result you have reached means that the defendant will be acquitted?
Foreman: Yes.
Judge: Very well. I will ask Mr. Clerk to put the question in the normal way.
Clerk: Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict on which you are all agreed?
Foreman: No. It was 11 to 1.
On the next morning, despite strong arguments put by counsel for the defendant, the judge discharged the jury and ordered a retrial. The second trial followed at the end of January 1975. One can imagine the shock felt by Mr. Graham, who at one moment believed himself cleared by the judge and then found himself facing a second trial almost two months later. It is not surprising that he was ill during the period and that he did not acquit himself well in the witness box. The prosecution was able to surmount the difficulties it had encountered in the first trial in cross-examination by the defendant's counsel and the second jury consequently found Mr. Graham guilty. He was fined £250 and ordered to pay costs of £200.
It is an important principle of our law that a man cannot be tried twice for the same offence. It is true that as no verdict was returned at the first trial a plea of autrefois acquis could not be pleaded. But the defendant had been virtually


acquitted. He should not have been tried again. The judge in the first trial was clearly wrong in what he did. He should not have d]ischarged the jury and ordered a retrial. He should have summed up and then asked the jury to consider their verdict. If they could not agree he was empowered after two hours to take a majority verdict which was 11 to 1 for a finding that Mr. Graham was not guilty. The defendant would have been formally acquitted.
The judge was later strongly criticised by the Court of Appeal. In its judgment the court said:
That trial ended in an order for a new trial made by that learned Deputy Judge in circumstances of unusual and one hopes unparalled confusion for which, reluctant as we are to criticise, the sole responsibility must rest on the learned Deputy Judge.
What I am concerned about is the action taken by the prosecution in this case, the Chief Constable of the Port of London Authority. I think that I may claim over many years to have had some experience in the conduct of criminal cases on behalf of both the prosecution and the defence. I have not the slightest doubt that if the prosecution had been not private but undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, having heard the result of the first trial and the virtual acquital of the defendant, counsel would have advised—I certainly would have done—and the Director would have authorised, that no evidence would be offered at the second trial and a verdict of not guilty would then have been entered.
That was not done by the police of the Port of London Authority. They persisted in their effort to obtain a conviction. One wonders why. Was there an ulterior motive? If there is the slightest possibility of that, it is disgraceful. If they could strengthen their case against this man and secure a conviction, they could dismiss him and he would lose his pension and severance pay, by which the Port of London Authority would benefit.
That object was achieved. As a result of the verdict, this man of excellent character, who has served the PLA well for 21 years with no blemish on his character, was not only fined £250 and ordered to pay £200 costs but was dismissed by the authority and lost his pension and severance pay of over £7,000.
What is one to think of the conduct of the authority in following this course when, if the DPP had been prosecuting, he would, I believe, in the light of the circumstances, have offered no evidence at the second trial? Certainly the PLA made a personal gain. It was said by Mr. Justice Channel in the case of Regina v. Lewis:
A Jury should not be discharged in order to allow the prosecution to present a stronger case at another trial.
That is what the private prosecution hoped to do.
Mr. Graham appealed to the Court of Appeal. The only possible ground of appeal was based on the interpretation of Section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, under which the court had power to quash a conviction upon the ground that the verdict of the jury should be set aside, because, "in all circumstances" of the case, it was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The appeal was dismissed in a reserved judgment upon the narrow grounds that the words "in all the circumstances" referred only to the second trial. However, the court certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved, the question being:
Ought the Court of Appeal to have quashed the conviction at the second trial on the ground that that verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory by reason of the fact that at the first trial the action of the Deputy Circuit Judge in discharging the jury deprived the accused of the probability of acquittal, having regard to the fact that that jury had (albeit improperly) announced that they were 11–1 in favour of acquittal?
The House of Lords did not give leave.
I venture to suggest that, when the Criminal Appeal Act was discussed in this House and in Committee, if anyone had suggested that it was not possible to consider the words "in all the circumstances" as being applicable to this case, but merely the narrow interpretation placed upon it by the courts, the Minister in charge would have given an assurance or had words inserted to prevent that narrow interpretation.
That is my case in asking the Home Secretary to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. A man found not guilty by a jury by 11 to one was put in jeopardy. A course was adopted by the prosecution in not electing to offer no evidence at the second trial—the latter


being a course that I believe the DPP would have adopted. I ask the Minister to ensure that this matter is put right, that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
In a letter dated 6th April this year, the Home Office said, inter alia:
The Home Secretary can consider recommending the grant of a Free Pardon only if some fresh and compelling consideration comes to light which the courts of trial and appeal were unable to take into account and which provides substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned was innocent of the offence of which he was convicted.
That there are substantial grounds for thinking that Mr. Graham is innocent is clear from the verdict of the first jury.
My hon. Friend may rely on my quotation from the letter, but that covers the very grounds that I am putting forward. The courts of trial, including the second jury, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, could not take into account the injustice which had occurred—on the second trial because of the course adopted by the prosecution, and in the appeal court because of its interpretation of the relevant section of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. They could not take into account the obvious injustice which had occurred.
But the Home Secretary can and should take that into account. We have heard a great deal lately about the dangers of conviction in identification cases. In those cases consideration has been given, although there are certainly a number where there can be no question of fresh evidence.
I understand that the machinery of the grant of a free pardon exists to correct an obvious injustice where the court cannot do so. This is such a case—a man found not guilty by a jury by 11 to one, a judge making a mistake in failing to proceed, a second trial where no evidence should have been offered. If ever there were a travesty of justice, this is it. I hope that my hon. Friend will go into the facts again very carefully and give them the most careful consideration.

5.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): Even at this late hour, I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr.

Weitzman) both for raising this subject and for the manner in which he has done so.
My hon. and learned Friend rightly made the point about a personal problem. It is always a tragedy when somebody without a previous conviction and prominent in the community is charged with and convicted of a criminal offence. When that conviction is accompanied by controversy and subsequently by advocacy which has culminated in this Adjournment debate, it behoves us to look into the matter with especial care.
I should like to set the debate in its general framework, because my hon. and learned Friend invited a recommendation by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. That can be exercised in two ways. The first is by recommending remission of the sentence where there is doubt in the case. It is generally agreed, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend would not be dissent, that that would not be helpful here, as the fact of the conviction would remain. I emphasise that that course is followed where there is doubt about the evidence.
The second way is the grant of a free pardon, which can be recommended by my right hon. Friend when he has evidence of the innocence of the person in question and not doubts about his guilt. This exercise, as it is not a usurpation of the position of the courts, must be carried out on new evidence. It cannot be done where there is a belief that the Home Secretary would have decided the matter differently had he been the judge. The Home Secretary cannot take the place of the courts. He can exercise his power to recommend only when new evidence is available. That is the general framework within which I set my approach to this debate.
It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that the first trial at which Mr. Graham stood ended thoroughly unsatisfactorily. But my hon. and learned Friend has on several occasions referred to the verdict and referred to a finding of "not guilty". In fact, as the learned counsel who appeared for Mr. Graham both at first instance and on appeal accepted, there was no verdict formally rendered and it is a cardinal matter which was accepted not only by counsel


for the defendant on that occasion but by the courts on the subsequent appeal proceedings.

Mr. Weitzman: I said that there was no formal finding, but virtually there was clearly a finding of innocent by 11 to one.

Mr. John: That is what my hon. and learned Friend says. I want to go on from the technical point about the verdict. When no verdict has been delivered, the judge has a discretion to discharge the jury, from which no appeal lies. That really is the position which was arrived at.
I know my hon. and learned Friend has a strong belief, based upon a study of the case, that a finding in favour of Mr. Graham would have occurred had the case proceeded to a decision on that first occasion. But it did not. It went to a second trial.
Again my hon. and learned Friend, on behalf of Mr. Graham, has properly questioned whether evidence should have been proffered on behalf of the prosecution, and he has said that in his considerable experience he would not have tendered advice of that nature had he been the person to advise. That again is something for which the Home Secretary, as he knows, has no responsibility.
My hon. and learned Friend went on from there to deal with the question of ulterior motive. I think that I should state from the record how the prosecution was and is initiated by the Port of London police. The prosecuting authority is the chief constable who acts, I understand, independently of the Auhority itself. It was he who decided to proceed upon the advice of solicitor and counsel. The position was that the Port of London Authority itself was certainly not consulted by the chief constable; nor was there any factor in his mind, I am told, that led to his initiating this case because of the question of saving the Port of London Authority money.
However, after that there was a second trial at which, according to the Court of Appeal transcript, which my hon. and learned Friend and I have read carefully, a decision was arrived at on what the Court of Appeal after a very short retirement called overwhelming evidence.

That was a finding of "guilty" and the fines which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned.
The Court of Appeal then considered the verdict and dealt with, among other things, the question of Section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. My hon. and learned Friend will know perfectly well that although he may say that a Minister would have intervened in a parliamentary debate in 1968, had it been thought that the words would have the connotation they had, to emphasise to the contrary, nevertheless the ordinary canons of statutory interpretation by the judiciary apply, and it had to construe this section as it did. That being so, it decided that since it could not consider the circumstances of a trial at which no verdict was brought in, that was not part of the matters which it had to consider upon appeal.
My hon. and learned Friend has rightly said that Mr. Graham, through his legal advisers, sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but permission was refused. There is no new evidence which was not before the court at the time of the judicial process. That being so, the Home Secretary is in a difficulty about acceding to what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Mr. Weitzman: It is true that in a sense there is no new evidence, but the evidence which existed could not be considered by the court. The court could not take into account the finding of the first jury of 11 to one but the Home Secretary can.

Mr. John: My hon. and learned Friend says that, but it was canvassed before both courts before they came to their conclusions. My right hon. Friend would have a difficulty about making any recommendations because he is not anxious to put the Home Secretary in the position of the courts, either of appeal or of first instance.
My hon. and learned Friend has put forward the case fully and frankly on behalf of Mr. Graham. I make no undertakings because I cannot see any way in which the Home Secretary could properly intervene to exercise the Royal Prerogative.
Earlier, I referred to the care with which one has to look at a case when a


first offender loses a character which he dearly prizes and whose loss is an irreparable blow. I promise in the light of the debate to look at the evidence yet again. I will go through it carefully and write to my hon. and learned Friend about my views. I do that in friendship to my hon. and learned Friend—and that is not a formal expression of friendship but a true expression—in fairness to the case that he has put forward and, above all, in fairness to Mr. Graham.
When I have concluded that examination I shall let my hon. and learned Friend know as fully as I can. I cannot be very hopeful, but I hope that he will think that what I am prepared to do is at least a helpful and positive response to the case that he has made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Six o'clock.